
Book (\(4- 

Copyright N° 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



THE LUTHERANS IN THE MOVEMENTS 
FOR CHURCH UNION 



J. L. NEVE, D.D. 

Professor of Symbolics and History of Doctrines in the 

Hamma Divinity School of Wittenberg College in 

Springfield, Ohio 



The Lutheran Publication House 
Philadelphia. 









Copyright 1921 by 
J. L. NEVE 



OCT 23 192 



§)CIA627501 






CI- 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER ONE. THE WITTENBERG CONCORD 5-18 

CHAPTER TWO. LUTHERANISM IN ITS STRUGGLE 

WITH CALVINISM 19-48 

I. Calvinism as a New Type of Protestantism 20 

II. The First Conflict Between Calvinism and Lutheranism 22 

III. Inroads of Calvinism upon Lutheran Territory 25 

IV. Considerations for the Appreciation of the Conflict 29 

V. Final Separation of the Two Churches 30 

VI. Further Loss of Lutheran Territory 36 

VII. Special Character of the Reformed Church in Germany.. 40 

CHAPTER THREE. THE UNION MOVEMENTS OF THE 

SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 49-80 

Introductory Reflections 49 

I. The Sendomire and the Montbeliard Colloquies 52 

II. The "Palatinate Irenicum" 55 

III. The Advance of Paraeus 56 

IV. The Leipzig Colloquy 57 

V. The Convention at Thorn 62 

VI. The Colloquy at Cassel ....64 

VII. The Colloquy at Berlin 70 

VIII. The Endeavors of John Dury J7 

CHAPTER FOUR. GEORGE CALIXTUS AND HIS OP- 
PONENTS 81-109 

I. Preparatory Influences upon Calixtus ... 82 

II. Theories of Calixtus and the Reply of the Lutherans 86 

Calixtus on Fundamentals and Nonfundamentals . . 86 

Appeal to Tradition and Apostles' Creed 87 

Religion as an Opposite to Theology 89 

The "Inner Union" Claimed, 92 

III. Estimate of the Principles of Calixtus and of the 

Lutherans of His Age 96 

Distinction Between Church and Individual 96 

The Teaching of Calixtus as a Reaction Against 

the Orthodoxism of His Age 99 

The "Internal Union" 100 

Calixtus Failed to Appreciate the Reformation 101 

Humanism 102 

IV. Polemical Activity of the Lutherans 105 

Tfee Charge of Syncretism 103 

Jena versus Wittenberg 105 

The Severity of Polemics 107 



CHAPTER FIVE. THE PRUSSIAN UNION 110-137 

I. Preparatory Development 112 

II. Proclamation of the Union and the First Stage of its 

Development 116 

III. The Reaction 120 

IV. The Plan of an Absorptive Union Changed into a 
Confederation 127 

CHAPTER SIX. THE GERMAN EVANGELICAL SYNOD 

OF NORTH AMERICA 138-197 

I. Historical Orientation 140 

II. Facts Explanatory of the Growth of the Synod 141 

Support from the Union Circles of the Fatherland.. 141 
Reaction Against Confessional Lutheransm in 

America ... 142 

Liberal Attitude in Matters of Dictrine and practice 144 

III. The Special Union Features 148 

Objective Truth Opposed to its Subjective Conception 149 

Scripture versus Creed 153 

An Under-Estimation of the Differences Between 

Lutherans and Reformed 163 

Lord's Supper ^ 163 

Baptism 169 

Word 171 

Public Teaching of the Synod 173 

Its Confessional Paragraph 190 

CHAPTER SEVEN. CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS WITH 
REFERENCE TO PRESENT-DAY MOVEMENTS 

IN AMERICA 198-226 

I. The Problem of Church Union in America is Not the 

Same as in Germany 198 

II. Some Motives for Church Union Examined 205 

III. The Persistency of the Difference 214 



PRELIMINARY REMARKS 

What is offered in this book is a reprint taken from 
articles as they appeared in the "Lutheran Quarterly" 
(Gettysburg, Pa.,) during the years from January 1918 
to July 1921. The suggestion for the preparation of 
these detailed historical reviews was received when in 
the fall of 1917 we promised to read a paper before the 
American Society of Church History in New York on the 
"Union Movements between the Lutherans and the Re- 
formed." After having given the matter a little more 
thought we felt that it was impossible to treat this sub- 
ject with any degree of adequacy in a single paper. We 
therefore decided to limit ourselves in our reading before 
the Society to a discussion of the union movements in 
the sixteenth century, which culminated in the Witten- 
berg Concord, and then to continue our investigation 
along the line indicated in the table of contents of this 
book, thus covering all the efforts at union with the Re- 
formed, in which the Lutheran Church has been engaged. 
The contents of Chapter V was read at another meeting 
of the American Society of Church History. 

The author is grateful to Drs. William W. Rockwell and 
Henry Preserved Smith, professors in Union Theological 
Seminary, for their- courtesy in making possible for him 
the use of a very valuable collection of works on Polem- 
ics and Irenics, which was gathered in Germany by the 
late Dr. Briggs and which is now a part of the library of 
Union Theological Seminary. He also acknowledges 
with much appreciation some valuable aid received from 
the "Reference Department" of the Lutheran Bureau in 
New York. 

This in an age of union movements. The Episcopa- 
lians, the Disciples, the Presbyterians have inaugurated 



special movements. 1 The Lutheran Church is expected 
to participate, and she is misunderstood when she finds 
herself unable to do so. It has been our aim in these 
articles to call attention to the lessons of history for judg- 
ing the union problem as it exists for the Lutheran 
Church today. The union of American Protestantism 
with the Lutherans as participants is a problem alto- 
gether different from the endeavor of bringing the sis- 
ters and the daughters of the Reformed Church family 
into a common understanding. To arrive at a basis for 
judging this problem the historical precedents have to be 
investigated. This leads us to a study of the union 
movements among the Germans in the sixteenth, the sev- 
enteenth and the nineteenth century. Here alone it is 
where the union movements between Lutherans and Re- 
formed have had a history. A careful student will find 
that the union problem is fundamentally the same to-day 
as it was in the sixteenth and succeeding centuries. It 
is the question of how to overcome the doctrinal differ- 
ence between the Lutheran and the Reformed types of 
Protestantism. 

The tendency in the union movements of to-day is to 
ignore this difference. There is a double reason for this 
general attitude: (1) In the camp of the Reformed 
churches — and here the movements usually started (cf. 
p. 50 ff.) — there was always a noticeable readiness 
to unite with the Lutherans even without doctrinal 
agreement. It seems that it was always seen by the Re- 
formed churchmen that Lutheranism cannot continue to 
exist in an atmosphere of unionism or doctrinal indiffer- 
ence; that it would be bound to alter its distinguishing 
features and eventually settle down upon a position of an 
absorptive union in which the Reformed type of religion 
would survive. (2) Liberalistic theology which has a 
strong following in the denominations has changed the 
conception of the Scriptures. They are not regarded as 
authoritative, not as the source of truth; they are used 
merely as a kind of commentary on the personal religious 

i We refer to our review on pages 199-205. 



life of the Christian. The formal principle of the Re- 
formation is abandoned. The objective faith is of no in- 
terest anymore. The emphasis is upon the Christian 
experience and the "value judgments." This new the- 
ology has made many ministers indifferent to the distinc- 
tion between Lutherans and Reformed. Ritschl, 
although he was professor in the university of a Lu- 
theran province, was an ardent advocate of the Union. 

The Lutheran Church insists upon the "formal prin- 
ciple" of the Reformation. If she is to be drawn into a 
union with other churches it must be a union in the truth 
of God's Word. The Lutheran Church does not stand 
alone on that. There are many in the Presbyterian 
Church who take the same position. 2 Their apprehension 
is chiefly with regard to the liberalism in so many of the 
churches. The Lutheran Church is convinced that con- 
fessional indifference breeds and fosters liberalism. The 
differences between Luther on the one hand and Zwingli 
and Calvin on the other were on Scripture truth and, 
therefore, they must be overcome by a real agreement on 
those differences. The churchmen of the two camps 
must come together and discuss these differences with the 
same cordiality, frankness, thoroughness, patience and 
earnestness that characterized the Leipzig Colloquy in 
1632. 3 If it is impossible to find a union in that way 
then the Lutheran Church will be convinced that it can- 
not be accomplished by any other procedure. 

Also this should be said : Creedal truth cannot come to 
an expression except through forms that are more or less 
theological in nature. In the customary demand that 
church union must take place on the basis of "pure reli- 
gion," on the basis of the "fundamentals," to the exclu- 
sion of "theology" and the "non-fundamentals" there is a 
fallacy which we have aimed to point out in many places 
of the articles presented in this book (pp. 56f., 70, 75f., 
79, 86-98, 105-107, 117, 129, 150-153, 157f, 211-214). 

2 The present agitation among the Presbyterians over the Plan 
for Organic Union (see pp. iooff. 225) and the negative decision of 
their presbyteries furnishes an interesting confirmation of our 
statement. ♦ 



The Lutheran Church does not insist on hair-splitting 
distinctions on non-fundamentals as such, but there are 
matters which some may insist upon calling non-funda- 
mentals, that are after all necessary for qualifying the 
fundamentals, and such cannot be treated with indiffer- 
ence in arriving at a basis for church union. 

We wish to say just a word on the somewhat technical 
form of these investigations. We had to be critical, and 
much material was to be crowded into brief paragraphs. 
Such work always demands its own form of expression. 
Inasmuch as the historical material on the problem of 
union between Lutherans and Reformed has never been 
written up in English we felt that the foundation for a 
more popular discussion of the subject (which is de- 
sirable) ought to be in this form of critical research. 
For this reason we have been liberal in attaching foot 
notes, 491 in number, in which, for the most part, we have 
aimed to indicate the literature for re-examination and, 
perhaps, for a further development of the study. 

In examining the table of contents it may seem that 
the history surrounding the Schwabach and the Marburg 
Articles should have been taken in with the investiga- 
tions of the first chapter. We admit that this could have 
been done with much profit for our general purpose. Yet 
it may be said that in the Wittenberg Concord we have 
the first and the only tangible result of the union move- 
ments of the sixteenth century. 

Since some needed corrections could not be made in 
the body of articles, after the reprints had been taken, 
we would, therefore, ask the reader not to overlook the 
following. 



CORRIGENDA: 

Page 21, line 4 from bottom read mediation, not meditation. 
Page 22, line 1 from top read sixth, not last. 
Page 48, line 2 from bottom read nineteenth, not eighteenth. 
Page 88, line 4 from bottom read Sub. 4, not Sub. 3. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE WITTENBERG CONCORD. 

Literature: The works on Church History. We 
mention: Kurtz, 14th ed. (Leipzig, 1906), revised by 
Tschackert (p. 136, 8). Kawerau in vol. Ill of Moeller's 
Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte (Tuebingen, 1907), pp. 
86ff., lOOff., 124ff. Koestlin, Martin Luther, 5th ed., re- 
vised and completed by Kawerau, vol. II, pp. 326-356; 
576-583 (Berlin, 1903). The articles on "Wittenberg 
Concord" in the Realencyclopaedie (quoted as R. E.), 3rd 
ed., vol. XXI, pp. 383ff., by Kolde (cf. Schaff-Herzog) ; 
in Meusel, Kirchl. Handlexikon, 1st ed., VII, pp. 285ff. ; 
in Lutheran Cyclopedia p. 545, by Jacobs and Haas, (New 
York, 1899). Planck, Geschichte des protestantischen 
Lehrbegriffs, vol. Ill, pp. 337-408. Heppe, Die konfes- 
sionelle Entwicklung der alt-protestantischen Kirche 
Deutschlands (Marburg, 1854), pp. 72ff., 76ff. Schaff, 
Creeds of Christendom, 4th ed. (New York, 1899), pp. 
525ff. Seeberg, History of Doctrines, (Philadelphia, 
1905), pp. 390ff. (cf. p. 350). Loofs, Dogmengeschichte 
4th ed. (Halle, 1906), pp. 878, (cf. pp. 862ff.) Fisher, 
History of Christian Doctrine, (New York, 1906), p. 290. 
See also in R. E. the articles on "Bucer" by Gruenberg, 
(R. E., Ill, pp. 603ff.), on "Marburg Colloquy" by Kolde 
(R. E. XII, 248ff.) ; and on "Tetrapolitana" by Mueller 
(XIX, pp. 559ff.) ; Rudelbach, Reformation, Luthertum 
and Union (Leipzig, 1839, pp. 365-397. As to original 
sources, represented largely in the form of monograph- 
ical publications, containing the correspondence of the 
times, see the enumeration in Kolde's article in the R. E. 
(vol. XXI, p. 383f.) 



The union movements between Lutherans and Re- 
formed in the sixteenth century cannot be fully under- 
stood if we do not keep in mind that on the part of Philip 
of Hessia and of Bucer as the spokesman of the cities in 
Southern Germany (especially Strasburg) the political 
situation was one of the chief motives for all the en- 
deavors that led to the Wittenberg Concord. We may say 
that these negotiations began in the steps that were taken 
preparatory to the Marburg Colloquy (October 2nd and 
3rd, 1529) and that, therefore, Philip was the father of 
the whole movement. 4 His aim, together with Zwingli, 
was to oppose a strong united front to Charles V and the 
Roman Catholic princes of Germany. At the time of 
Marburg and up to the Augsburg Diet in 1530 Philip had 
been looking to Zuerich as the centre of a contemplated 
coalition. It was Zwingli's plan to win Philip of Hessia 
and to isolate Wittenberg (Kawerau, in Moeller's Church 
History, III, p. 104). This plan, Kawerau points out, 
had practically failed when Philip, at Augsburg (1530), 
added his signature to the Confession of the Saxons. 5 
The founding of the Smalcald Federation (February 
27th, 1530), finally, became the decisive factor that ren- 
dered impotent the political plans of Zwingli, which, if 
they had been successful, would have divided German 
Protestantism at a very early date. 

Political considerations were also shaping the actions 
of the Lutherans at Augsburg. Zwingli and all that 
leaned to him were under the ban during the days of 
Augsburg (1530) for two reasons: (1) because of 
Zwingli's political plans which made him obnoxious to 
the emperor; (2) because of his symbolic interpretation 
of the Lord's Supper, which was especially abhorred by 
the Romanists. Melanchthon, in order not to endanger 
the cause of the Lutherans, or, more particularly, the 

4 Cf. Kolde in R. E. on "Marburger Religionsgespraech," XII, 
249, i off. 

5 Ibid. p. 108; cf. 116, 117. 



cause of his elector 6 did not risk to meet Bucer person- 
ally while at Augsburg, because of the latter's associa- 
tion with Zwingli in the past. And because of their 
leaning to Zwingli most of the Cities of Upper Germany 
were not permitted to subscribe the Augsburg Confes- 
sion. 7 

After the adjourning of the Augsburg Diet the cities 
of Upper Germany 8 found themselves in a precarious 
situation. In case of attack by the emperor they would 
be the first to be overrun. They saw that their salvation 
was in the direction of a union with Wittenberg. In 
April 1532 these cities joined the Smalcald Federation by 
subscribing to the Augsburg Confession along with their 
own Confessions which they were not asked to renounce. 
This joining of the Smalcald Federation, however, did 
not mean a religious acknowledging of these Upper Ger- 
mans by the Lutherans. To bring about a confessional 
union which at the same time would strengthen the po- 
litical ties was the task to which Martin Bucer devoted 
himself with an indefatigable zeal. 

Of what kind was the union that Bucer was aiming at? 
He meant it as a union that should include the Zwingli- 
ans, and he meant it as a union by compromise. 

As was stated already, the cities in the South, with the 
exception of Nuremberg and Reutlingen, had not been 
permitted to sign the Augsburg Confession so that Stras- 
burg, Constance, Lindau and Memmingen had to hand in 
a Confession of their own: the Tetrapolitana. 9 This 
document in the composition of which Bucer had an im- 
portant part they themselves characterized as being 
"neither Lutheran nor Zwinglian." 10 This was not with- 
out a purpose. The way for a future union with the Wit- 
tenbergers was to be kept open. At the same time it was 

6 Cf. Neve, "Lutheran Symbolics (Columbus, O.), p. 85f. 

7 Mueller in R. E. XIX, 560, 38, 55; 561, 7. 

8 Strasburg, Constance, Memmingen, Lindau, Ulm, Biberach, 
and Augsburg had not been permitted to sign the Confession of 
the Saxons. 

9 See article by Mueller in R. E. XIX, 560, 54. 

10 Ibidem, with reference to Dobel, Memmingen im Reforma- 
tionszeitalter, part IV, p. 42. 



8 



hoped that it would serve the Swiss as a bridge to Luth- 
eranism. 11 

It was upon this basis ("neither Lutheran nor Zwingl- 
ian") that Bucer proceeded with his endeavours at unit- 
ing the two wings of Protestantism. He persuaded him- 
self that Luther and Zwingli had not understood each 
other; that the seemingly consubstantial expressions in 
Luther's Grosses Bekenntnis vom Abendmahl 12 were not 
intended to convey what they seemed to teach ; also that 
Zwingli would be willing to admit a positive gift in the 
Supper, besides the mere symbolical meaning of it. In 
Strasburg they had always emphasized the presence of 
Christ's whole person in the Supper, communicating him- 
self to the believers. The question was now how he could 
induce Luther to abandon some of his realism, and move 
Zwingli to add to his signification theory. 

As a key for solving the difficulty he brought a phrase 
into play, which he had already employed in a writing of 
1528 (a year and a half before the Marburg Colloquy) un- 
der the title "Vergleichung Dr. Luther's und seines Ge- 
genteils vom Abendmahl Christi," namely that Christ 
was present in a "sacramental" way. 13 He now spoke of 
a "sacramental presence" of Christ's Body and Blood in 
the Eucharist. This brought him nearer to Luther. He 

ii Cf. Kawerau in Moeller, III, p. 113; Mueller in R. E. XIX, 
564, 4. Article XVIII of the'Tetrapolitana" deals with the Lord's 
Supper. It is there said "that in this Sacrament Christ gives to 
his disciples and believers His true Body, truly to eat and to drink 
as a meat for the souls, and for eternal life." Quoted by Kolde in 
R. E. XXI, 561, 43ff. This sentence reveals the median type of 
teaching as it prevailed in Strasburg. Heppe, in "Konfessionelle 
Entwicklung der altprotestantischen Kirche" (p. 74) calls attention 
to the avoidance of the phrase customary with Luther "in the 
bread" (in pane). But note in the above quoted sentence especi- 
ally the emphasis upon the teaching which was characteristic of 
the Strasburgers in their subsequent dealing with Luther namely 
that the true Body and Blood is received only by the believers. 
As to the Zwinglianizing tendencies with regard to other articles 
of faith, see Mueller in R. E. XIX, p. 561, 49ft. The fundamental 
difference from Rome was also brought out a great deal stronger 
than in the Augsburg Confession. The Roman Mass is condemned 
in most severe language : "ein grausamer Krempelmarkt," "ein 
unleidlicher Greuel." Ibid. p. 561, 55. Cf. Heppe, pp. 73, 74. 

12 Erl. Ed. XXX, isiff. 

13 Gruenberg, in R. E. Ill, 608, 34, article "Martin Bucer." 



9 

admitted that bread and wine are not mere signs, but 
signa exhibitiva. While the bread is eaten the Body of 
Christ is truly offered and received. The union between 
bread and wine and the Body and Blood of Christ, how- 
ever, does not consist in any mixture of what these 
heavenly and earthly elements are in their true essenti- 
ality, but it is a "sacramental union." 14 

To this Confession of Bucer Luther could not object, 
because he also rejected the impanation theory and a 
Capernaitic eating and drinking. 15 Nevertheless, Bucer 
found it exceedingly difficult to satisfy Luther who feared 
that the phrase "sacramental presence" might be used 
for placing a spiritualistic interpretation upon whatever 
the other side might admit in the direction of the Real 
Presence. Bucer soon saw that he could expect no con- 
cessions to the Zwinglian side from Luther. To make 
sure that he would not be deceived with spiritualistic in- 
terpretation's of definitions which in themselves were not 
objectionable Luther even declared through Melanchthon, 
at the meeting in Cassel (1535) "that in and with the 
bread the Body of Christ is eaten in such a way that all 
which the bread works and suffers the Body of Christ 
works and suffers; that the Body is distributed, eaten 
and manducated (mit den Zaehnen zerbissen) . 16 In this 

14 Cf. the reports by Gruenberg in R. E. Ill, 609, 30; by Kolde 
in R. E. XXI, 391, 14; by Koestlin-Kawerau, Martin Luther II, 330; 
Corp. Ref. II, 807, 827. 

15 See Formula of Concord, Epitome, art. VII, Affirmative 6; 
Negative 20; cf. art. VIII, Aff. 12. Solid Decl. VII, 64. 

16 De Wette, Briefe Luthers IV, 5591. Melanchthon, in a letter 
to Cammerarius, said that he could bring this message only as a 
reporter of an opinion that was not his own (nuntius alienae sen- 
tentiae). Corp. Ref. II, 822. Kawerau says : "Nowhere else has 
Luther uttered his view with an expression that sounds so offen- 
sive as he did at this occasion. It is true that he used the same 
words in his very severe controversy with Zwingli in his Grosses 
Bekenntnis vom Abendmahl (1528, Luther's Works, Erl. Ed. XXX, 
p. 297), but not without immediately qualifying his statement. At 
this moment he chose to make his declaration brief and sharp 
(schroff). So much he desired reliably to establish the actual at- 
titude of Bucer to his teaching and to ward off the appearance as 
if people who are opposed to it had united with him, or that he 
himself had abandoned his original position." (Koestlin-Kawerau 
II, 329). Compare the language of the Formula of Concord on this 
subject (Part II, Art. VII, 105). 



10 

practice of painstaking care to guard the doctrine of the 
Keal Presence Luther continued through all his negotia- 
tions with Bucer. When after that meeting in Cassel 
the latter defended himself by employing terms that were 
unobjectionable Luther wrote characteristically: "If 
they mean in their heart what their words say then I 
know at this time not how to reproach them. 17 Against 
the pleading of Bucer that the people at Strasburg felt 
deeply against a teaching according to which the Body of 
Christ is received also by the unbelievers he remained un- 
yielding; all that Bucer succeeded in wresting from Lu- 
ther at that final conference in Wittenberg (1536) was 
the permission to make that artificial and unmaintain- 
able distinction between unbelievers and unworthy. 18 

We see that as far as Luther was concerned Bucer' s in- 
tention to bring about a union by compromise was not 
realized. The Wittenberg Concord is a Lutheran docu- 
ment all through. 19 What was the attitude of the Swiss 



17 Wo ihr Herz stehet wie die Worte lauten, so weiss ich auf 
diesmal die Worte nicht zu strafen. Koestlin-Kawerau II, 331. 

18 Cf. Gruenberg, R. E. Ill, 609, 50. Kolde R. E. XXI, 394, 38. 
Koestlin-Kawerau II, 340. 

19 Kolde, R. E. XXI, 396, 36. The text of the Wittenberg Con- 
cord is contained in the Corp. Ref. Ill, 375ft. It is translated into 
English in Jacobs' Book of Concord (not People's Edition) II, 253. 
We miss this document in Schaff's Creeds of Christendom. In the 
Wittenberg Concord we have, first, articles concerning the Lord's 
Supper. The first article says that with (cum) bread and wine 
Christ's Body and Blood are truly and essentially present, offered 
and received. The second article rejects impanation and the ex- 
istence of the Body outside of the action in the Sacrament. The 
third teaches the Real Presence independent of the worthiness of 
the servant of the Church and of the receiver, as long as the ad- 
ministration takes place according to the institution of Christ. 
The "unworthy" receive the Sacrament to their judgment. There 
was discussion also with regard to Baptism, particularly with re- 
gard to infant faith. Here they agreed "that through Baptism 
there come to infants the forgiveness of original sin, and the gift 
of the Holy Ghost who is efficacious in them (the children) ac- 
cording to their measure Although we do not understand 

of what nature this action of God in infants is, nevertheless it is 

certain that in them new and holy movements are wrought 

For although we must not imagine that infants understand, never- 
theless these movements and inclinations to believe Christ, and 
love God, are, in a measure, like the movements of faith and love. 
This is what we say when we say that infants have faith. For we 
speak thus that it may be understood that infants cannot become 
holy and be saved without the divine action in them." The Bap- 



11 

to Bucer's mediating activity, and how was the Witten- 
berg Concord received by the South German cities? 

We hear that even Zwingli, when Bucer first visited 
him after he had seen Luther in Coburg (1530), admit- 
ted the presence of Christ's Body in the Supper. But he 
qualified his statement by saying that it was not a bodily 
presence. 20 Fisher says correctly : "Zwingli was not the 
man to veil his opinions." 21 When Bucer soon after- 
wards drew up a formula in which he employed the words 
corpus verum Zwingli objected, at first moderately, 22 but 
soon in very strong language. 23 Bullinger, after the 
death of Zwingli, in a Confession of 1534, shows a cer- 
tain approach to the Tetrapolitana. 24 But he is far from 
an admission of the Real Presence in Luther's sense. In 
February 1536, about three months before the Witten- 
berg Concord was signed, the First Helvetic Confession 
was composed. 25 In this Confession there was progress 
over the original position of Zwingli in that the Sacra- 
ments were defined as consisting not only in signs, but 
also in essential things to be communicated. These are 
the "true communion of His Body and Blood," which then 
is qualified as Himself given to the believers for the 
strengthening of faith. 26 It was impossible for Bucer to 
reconcile Luther to such statements. 

tism in case of extreme necessity (Nottaufe) was justified. Pri- 
vate absolution to which there had been opposition in the South 
was admitted, because of the opportunity it affords to comfort the 
spiritually depressed and to instruct the religiously ignorant; aur- 
icular confession was rejected. (Meusel, Kirchl. Handlexikon VII, 
p. 287. Lutheran Cyclopedia, p. 545. Kolde, R. E. XXI, 395, 11). 

20 Kolde in R. E. XXI, p. 388, 1. 

21 Fisher, History of Doctrines, p. 290. 

22 Kolde ut supra, p. 389, 22. 

23 Ibid. p. 389, 22-27. 

24 Koestlin-Kawerau II, 327. 

25 Bucer himself had co-operated in the construction of this 
document. The authors agreed that it should not be published 
for the present as the outcome of the meeting with the Lutherans 
(in May) was to be awaited. Schaff, Creeds I, 388f. Kolde ut 
supra, p. 392, 45. 

26 This Confession is contained in Schaff's Creeds of Christen- 
dom III, 2iiff. Cf. Koestlin-Kawerau II, 334. Seeberg, History of 
Doctrines II, 390. Heppe, ut supra, p. 84. The point of interest is in 
the question: What did Bucer mean when he three months later 
agreed to the terms in the Wittenberg Concord? 



12 

But what was the attitude of the Cities of Upper Ger- 
many to the Wittenberg Concord? After hesitation on 
the part of some 27 all subscribed. But those of the Cities 
that had developed in their Reformation views under the 
influences from the South never ceased to interpret Art. 
X of the Augsburg Confession in the light of that median 
type as represented in the Tetrapolitana, which always 
formed the background for Bucer's approaches to the Lu- 
theran position. 28 The Real Presence was to them, as to 
Bucer, a spiritual one. As Christ's Body is spiritual so 
there was to them only one way of receiving, namely 
through the spirit of the believer. 29 

The Wittenberg Concord failed to accomplish the union 
that Bucer was laboring for. Luther tried for a number 
of years his utmost to win the Swiss. Up to two years 
before his death he abstained from all controversy against 
the Zwinglians in the hope that by such attitude a union 
on the basis of the Real Presence might develop. 30 But 
he found that his silence was more and more interpreted 
as an abandonment of his former position. Even 

27 Ulm, for instance, where they talked of the "new doctrine" 
which their representative had brought home from Wittenberg. 
Kolde, referring to his book Analecta Lutherana, p. 280L 

28 Moeller's Kirchengeschichte, vol. Ill by Kawerau, p. 125. 

29 Cf. Koestlin-Kawerau II, 39of. Loofs, p. 879. Heppe, pp. 
76, 48. 

30 Here is of special interest a letter which Luther wrote un- 
der the date of December first, 1537, to the followers of Zwingli in 
Zuerich. It was an answer to a letter received from them, in which 
they had emphasized their conception of a merely spiritual pres- 
ence in the Eucharist. In this letter Luther prays to God that he 
might be permitted to complete the work of reconciliation begun 
in the Wittenberg Concord, and he asks them to work for the 
same end. For himself and his friends he promises that in writing 
and preaching they would be quiet and mild, in order not to in- 
terfere with the development. And, referring to the difference 
in the doctrine of the Sacrament, he wrote : "Since we do not yet 
understand each other fully, it is well to exercise mutual kindness, 
and always hope the best until all turpid waters have fully set- 
tled." The letter of the Swiss is given in Enders' Briefwechsel 
XI, I57f.. together with Luther's answer (Latin), p. 157. German 
in the Historie des Sakramentsstreits, p. 400; also in Enders XI, 
294 and in Erl. Ed. of Luther's Works, LV, 190. Extracts of both 
letters are given in Koestlin-Kawerau II, pp. 350 and 352; also in 
Planck, Geschichte des Protestant. Lehrbegriffs III, Book 8, p. 
399ff. 



13 

Schwenkfeld prided himself with being upon common 
ground with him. 31 His consent to removing the prac- 
tice of elevation at celebrating the Lord's Supper in the 
Wittenberg Churches was taken as proof of his conver- 
sion to the spiritualistic views of his former opponents. 32 
In the publication of the First Helvetic Confession he saw 
the determination of Bullinger and his friends in Zuerich 
to resist the Real Presence conception. Furthermore, 
since that meeting in Cassel (1534), referred to above, 
he had observed with growing concern the changing at- 
titude of Melanchthon. 33 

As standard-bearer of the Real Presence which he saw 
founded in the Scriptures and which he always regarded 
as essential to his system of teaching he feels his respon- 
sibility for transmitting it to the Protestant Church of 
the future. In 1543 he announced: "After so many 
Confessions which I have published I must send out one 
more; I shall do it soon, and it will be my last." 34 As a 
final impulse for carrying out this plan there came into 
his hands, in the summer of 1544, a document, prepared 
by Bucer and Melanchthon, which contained articles of 
faith for introducing the Reformation in the city of Co- 
logne. Here Bucer's mediating interpretation of the 
Real Presence was openly expressed, with an ignoring 
even of the Wittenberg Concord. 35 In Sept. 1544 Luther 

31 Corp. Ref. Ill, 983ft". ; IV, 797- De Wette, Brief e V, 463, 6i3f. 

32 De Wette, Brief e V, 236. Corp. Ref. Ill, 4S8; IV, 735- 

33 Koestlin-Kawerau II, 335. Regarding the relation of Me- 
lanchthon's Variata edition of the Augsburg Confession to the 
general union movement see Neve, Lutheran Symbolics, pp. 2o8ff. ; 
cf. pp. giff. 

34 De Wette V, 644L "Ich muss deshalb nach so vielen Be- 
kenntnissen, die ich getan, noch eines ausgehen lassen; das will 
ich ehestens machen, und es soil mein letztes sein." 

35 Together with bread and wine Christ offers truly His Body. 
He who firmly believes the promise receives Christ's Body truly 
for his salvation. There was nothing said of a receiving also by 
the "unworthy." Advice was given to dismiss "all fleshly thoughts 
in this mystery." Luther characterized the document with the 
following words : Es treibt lange viel Geschwaetz von Nutzen, 
Frucht und Ehre des Sakraments, aber von der Substanz mum- 
melt es, dass man nicht vernehmen soil, was es davon halte, in 
aller Maase wie die Schwaermer tun. De Wette, Briefe V, 572ff., 
577- Corp. Ref. V, 3i3f., 293, 304. 



14 

published his Brief Confession of the Lord's Supper. 86 
In very sharp language he rejects the teaching of Carl- 
stadt, Zwingli, Oecolampadius and Schwenkfeldt (He 
calls him Stenkefeldt) , and points his finger at "their 
disciples in Zuerich and wherever they are." 

This publication marks the final failing of the Witten- 
berg Concord and with it the failing of the union move- 
ments of the sixteenth century as far as the relation be- 
tween Lutherans and Reformed is concerned. 

There is a question that forces itself upon us, and this 
would be the place to attempt an answer. Why was Lu- 
ther so unyielding at Marburg and here in his dealing 
with Bucer and with the Swiss ? To charge common stub- 
bornness would be very unhistorical. Prof. J. P. Fischer 
says in his History of Doctrines (p.290) : "It is not to Lu- 
ther's discredit that he had no relish for the ambiguities 
of compromise" ; and Phil. Schaff, writing of Bucer 37 says 
"He labored with indefatigable zeal for an evangelical 
union and hoped to attain it by elastic compromise form- 
ulas . . . which concealed the real difference and in the end 
satisfied neither party." No, Luther had a very serious 
reason for his unyielding position. He stood for a religi- 
ous interest in which his conscience was involved. Prof. 
Kawerau, himself a man of the Prussian Union, in dis- 
cussing the Marburg Coloquy, has a fine appreciation of 
the religious interest for which Luther stood in his con- 
flict with Zwingli. 38 The Sacrament, Kawerau explains, 
was to Luther an act in which God incarnate Himself 
condescends to seal for the individual the forgiveness of 
his sins. He insists upon a receiving of Christ's Body 
also by the unworthy because, as he said, the reality of 
Christ's appointed gift must never be made dependent 
upon our thinking and believing. 39 It is the principle of 
realism that goes through his whole system. We see it 



36 Kurtz Bekenntnis D. Martin Luther's vom Heiligen Sakra- 
ment. Erl. Ed. XXXII, 379- 

37 Creeds I, 526. 

38 Moeller, Kirchengeschichte, vol. Ill, by Kawerau, 3rd. ed., p. 
891. 

39 Koestlin-Kawerau II, 339. 



15 



in his conception of the Word as a means of grace just as 
much as in his teaching of the Sacrament. Stripped of 
Luther's conception of the Real Presence, the historical 
Lutheran Church goes out of existence. If this one doc- 
trine is untenable then a whole number of other tenets of 
Lutheranism, that are based upon the same principle, 
must go, and historical Lutheranism is no more. Much 
of what is called Lutheranism in Germany has gradually 
become another thing, simply because this one corner- 
stone, the Real Presence and what goes with it, has been 
abandoned or has been relegated to the sphere of indif- 
ference. It is of special interest to observe that the dif- 
ferent Norwegian bodies of Lutherans in our country 
have united upon the old historical Lutheran platform, 
and that the English speaking bodies of Lutherans, the 
General Synod, the General Council, and the United 
Synod of the South, are effecting their union upon the 
same basis,. There is among all the Lutheran synods of 
America not one that does not emphasize Luther's doc- 
trine of the Real Presence; not simply because Luther 
taught it — there are many teachings of Luther, which the 
Lutheran Church has not symbolized — but because they 
accept Luther's principle of realism in exegesis and be- 
cause they see that the doctrines of Lutheranism are an 
organism from which it is impossible to eliminate one 
part without affecting the life of the whole. Luther 
stood for distinct religious interests, he could not yield, 
and under the historical circumstances he had to sound, 
before his death, the note that went out with his last con- 
fession in 1544. He might have done it with less violence, 
but his declaration that he was yet standing upon the 
old ground was one that had to be made. 

The question has been asked whether Bucer was sin- 
cere in his mediating activities. He was charged with 
insincerity both from the Zwinglian and the Lutheran 
side. The Zwinglians, that is Bullinger and his friends 
in Zuerich, mistrusted his interpretation of the Witten- 
berg Concord, and in a meeting at Basle (1536) they de- 
cided to find out the truth by submitting his statements 



16 

to Luther, 40 and Bucer had times when it was hard for 
him to convince the Swiss of his honesty. 41 Luther, on 
the other hand, met Bucer with much distrust at Coburg 
(1530). He wrote: Martin Bucer nihil respondeo.* 2 
And while he at times put great confidence in him and 
welcomed him heartily yet there were moments when he 
feared that he could not trust him and that he had to test 
his sincerity. 43 Even after the agreement upon the Wit- 
tenberg Concord in 1536 he felt an aversion to Bucer*s 
diplomatic activities in trying to win the Swiss to a 
recognition of the new basis by saying that a real differ- 
ence between the two sides was not existing, and he ad- 
monished him to desist from representations not quite in 
harmony with truth. 44 Amsdorf and Osiander had no 
confidence in Bucer. The charge of insincerity has been 
repeated by many historians. To arrive at a fair judg- 
ment we need, of course, to think of the difficulty of the 
task he had set before himself. Then we need to consider 
that when he spoke of a truly "essential" presence of 
Christ's Body (purposely avoiding Luther's term "sub- 
stantial") he always meant by that only a spiritual pres- 
ence. 45 When he rejected consubstantiation 46 he meant 
by that more than the Formula of Concord does. This 
was Luther's constant fear. But if we remember the 
persistency with which he in all his dealings with Luther 
did reject consubstantiation and emphasized a sacramen- 
tal union (which however, in his mind was not quite the 
same as what the Lutherans understood by that term), 
if we call to our mind the letter which he wrote to Lu- 
ther after that meeting with Melanchthon in Cassel 
(1534)\ 47 in which he frankly explained to what extent 

40 Koestlin-Kawerau II, 350. 

41 Kolde R. E. XXI, 398, 24. 

42 Enders' Briefwechsel VIII, 258. 

43 See Kolde ut supra, 393, 25. Koestlin-Kawerau II, 331, 338. 

44 Ibid. 351. 

45 Ibid. 348. 

46 Ibid. 330. Corp. Ref. II, 8091; cf. 8261. Referred to by Kolde 
ut supra 391, 17-30- 

47 Quoted in extract by Koestlin-Kawerau II, 331. 



17 

only he could agree with him, if we finally think of how 
he at that meeting at Wittenberg (1536) when Luther in- 
sisted upon a receiving of the Body also by the unbe- 
lievers, consented only to a receiving by the unworthy, 
by which he meant those "who are in the Church and have 
faith, yet do not discern the Lord's Body, do not properly 
estimate this gift of Christ": 48 it seems to us that in 
consideration of all this it cannot be maintained that 
Bucer was intentionally insincere. He honestly believed 
that there was a middle ground upon which Luther and 
his opponents could meet if they only understood each 
other. 49 His was the Strasburg type of teaching. He 
stands in the history of the Reformation as "the great 
compromise theologian" (Seeberg II, 390), but because 
there is no middle ground between the realistic and the 
spiritualistic position 50 he became "the stepping stone to 
Calvinism. 51 The fact is that Bucer regarded the whole 
object of controversy as of only minor importance. His 
biographer in the R. E. says : He had more appreciation 
of Luther's occasional stubbornness than of his religious 
motives in the matter. For this reason he was always so 
easily ready for large concessions and for ever new for- 
mulations. 52 

The Wittenberg Concord failed and yet there is trace- 
able to this document and its negotiations a number of 
positive results which we shall enumerate at the close of 
this discussion: (1) The polemics between Luther and 
his opponents ceased for a number of years. (2) This 
served for the strengthening of the Smalcald Federation. 
(3) The cities of Upper Germany were drawn into a 
common confessional interest with the Lutherans. (4) 

48 Ibid. 348; cf. Luth. Cyclopedia, p. 545. 

49 With regard to whether Bucer was sincere see Gruenberg 
in R. E. Ill, 610, 32ff. 

50 It is not without interest for the student of the History of 
Doctrines to observe that from the beginning of Christianity there 
were in the Church the two views, the realistic and the spiritual- 
istic. In Irenaeus for instance we have Luther's realistic position 
while in Origen we have the spiritualistic teaching of Berengar, 
Zwingli, Bullinger, and Calvin. 

51 Loofs, Dogmengeschichte 879. 

52 Gruenberg in R. E. Ill, 610, 4off. 



18 

Thus a way was paved for future Calvinistic influences 
upon German Protestantism. (5) Melanchthon became 
encouraged in his efforts at modifying original Lutheran- 
ism. 53 (6) Philip of Hessia also was encouraged in the 
endeavors which he inaugurated at Marburg. It is, 
therefore, only historically logical that in centuries fol- 
lowing Hessia (or parts of Hessia) introduced the union. 

(7) But it may also be traced to the negotiations leading 
to the Wittenberg Concord that later in the Prussian 
Union as in the union movements in other parts of Ger- 
many Lutheranism became the predominating element. 54 

(8) The most important among the positive results was 
the lesson that a union by compromise between Lutherans 
and Reformed, doctrinally speaking, is an impossibility. 
If in following centuries any union between Lutherans 
and Reformed did succeed it was not by a compromise in 
the field of doctrine. 

53 "'Bucerism is the contemporaneous pendant of Melanchthon- 
ean Lutheranism," Seeberg II, 393. Cf. Heppe 75, 84. Koestlin- 
Kawerau II, 328. 

54 Cf. Heppe 82. 



CHAPTER II. 

LUTHERANISM IN ITS STRUGGLE WITH CALVINISM. 

Literature: Seeberg, History of Doctrines II, 390ff., 
386ff. Loofs, Dogmengeschichte (4th ed.), 875ff., 902ff. 
Thomasius, Dogmengeschichte II, (2nd ed. by Seeberg), 
543ff., 556ff., 638ff. Kurtz, Kirchengeschichte, (14th ed., 
1909, from Reformation on revised by Tschackert), 161, 
152. English edition of 1888, §§ 141, 144, 154. Moel- 
ler, Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte, vol. Ill, by Ka- 
werau (3rd ed.), 181ff., 299ff. C. W. Hering, Geschichte 
der Kirchlichen Unionsversuche 1836, 1, 184ff., 258ff. 
Schaff, Creeds of Christendom I, 554ff., 536f. Plitt, Ein- 
leitung in die Augustana II, 79-102. Fritschel, Formula of 
Concord, Luth. Pub. Soe'y, Phila., 1916, pp 181-193 ; 194- 
202 ; 203-212. Cf . extract of Fritschel's book in Neve, In- 
troduction to Luth. Symbolics (2nd ed. will appear under 
different title), Luth. Book Concern, Columbus, O., pp. 
384-428. On Altered and Unaltered Ausburg Confes- 
sion, see the same book, 86-100, cf. 207-210. Kruske, 
Johann von Lasko und der Sakramentsstreit, Leipzig, 
1901. Wangemann, Joh. Sigismund und Paul Gerhardt, 
1-100. Stahl, Luth. Kirche und die Union, 107-123. G. 
W. Richards, The Heidelberg Catechism, Phila., 1913, pp. 
32ff., 77ff. The following articles in Hauck,Realencyclo- 
paedie der Protestantischen Theologie und Kirche 
(quoted as R. E.) deal with the matters of this chapter: 
"Joachim Westphal" by Kawerau (XX, 185ff.) ; "Hard- 
enberg" by Bertheau (VII, 408ff.) ; "Tilemann Hesshu- 
sen" by Hackenschmidt (VIII, 8ff) ; "Naumberger Fuer- 
stentag" by Kawerau (XIII, 661ff.) ; "Melanchthon" by 
Kirn (XII, 513ff.) ; "Philippisten" by Kawerau (XV, 

(19) 



322ff.) ; "Krell" by Weiss (XI, 85ff.) ; "Orthodoxie" by 
Burger (XIV, 495ff.) ; "Neostadiensium Admonitio" by 
Miiller (XIII, 709f.) ; "Protestantismus" by Kattenbusch 
(XVI, 162f.) ; "Heidelberger Katechismus" by Lauter- 
burg (X, 164ff.) 



Before we proceed to discuss the union movements in 
the age of George Calixtus and in the century that fol- 
lowed, we have to insert a chapter on the new doctrinal 
conflict that was inaugurated by the appearance of Cal- 
vinism. Whatever in coming centuries worked for union 
between Lutherans and Reformed, or for a spirit of toler- 
ation between the two Churches, it had reference to the 
relation between Lutheranism and Calvinism. 



I. CALVINISM AS A NEW TYPE OF PROTESTANTISM. 



With the activities of Martin Bucer there had been cre- 
ated in Strasburg a "median type of theology'' as we have 
seen in the first chapter of these discussions. 1 The spe- 
cial feature of this theology with regard to the Eucharist 
was the emphasis upon the spiritual receiving of Christ's 
Body and Blood, conditioned on the faith of the com- 
municant. Now let us keep in mind that Calvin was in 
Strasburg from 1538 to 1541. But already before his 
coming there he had received decisive influences from 
Bucer. 2 But with the ascendency of Calvin, Bucer's the- 
ology was almost everywhere merged in Calvinism, and 
so it was Calvin who became the chief representative of 
that mediating conception of the Lord's Supper which 
characterized the South West of Germany. 3 We may say 

i Compare again Seeberg, History of Doctrines, II, 3gof. 

2 Loofs, Dogmengeschichte, p. 878. Cf. Calvin's discussion of 
the Lord's Supper in the first edition (1536) of his Institutiones 
IV, 17, §5- 

3 See also Hering, Geschichte der kirchl. Unionsversuche I, 
i86ff. 



21 

that Calvinism was simply the higher form of Bucerism. 

We can, therefore, understand that for a time Calvin 
could be regarded as an "Upper-German Lutheran" (ein 
oberdeutscher Lutheraner) . 4 The influences from Lu- 
ther are clearly traceable in Calvin. 5 Seeberg also writes : 
"Calvin, like Bucer, drew his first inspiration from Lu- 
ther. Luther's ideas moulded him in a general way as a 
theologian and also in his views of particular doctrines. 
Yet he was a Lutheran only in the same sense as Bucer. 
Or, we may say, the impulses which made Calvin a theo^ 
logian and churchman proceeded not only from the influ- 
ences of Luther, but also from that conception of religion 
and of the Church and her duty which prevailed at Stras- 
burg." 6 

Then (1541) Calvin followed the call back to Geneva. 
Here he succeeded in effecting a doctrinal agreement with 
Bullinger and the followers of Zwingli in Zurich, which 
was expressed in the Consensus Tigurimcs of 1549. This 
confessional document is pronounced by E. Staehelin "the 
solemn act by which the Zwinglian and Calvinistic refor- 
mations were joined in everlasting wedlock as the one 
great Reformed Church." 7 On the doctrine of the Sup- 
per there was in that Consensus, with regard to the form 
of expression, an approach to Zwingli; but in substance 
we have here the teaching of Calvin as a further develop- 
ment of Zwingli's conception after the manner of Bucer's 
meditation. 8 

For lack of space we cannot here develop and review in 
detail Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper in its dis- 
tinction from or its relation to that of Luther. We refer 

4 Cf. Loofs, p. 877, 879; also Thomasius-Seeberg, Dogmenge- 
schichte II, 547. 

5 Lang, Bekehrang Calvins, 47ff., referred to by Seeberg and 
Loofs. 

6 History of Dictrines II, 393. 

7 Staehelin, Johann Calvin II, 121. 

8 The text of the Consensus Tigurinus is omitted by Schaff in 
his Creeds of Christendom, chiefly because of its length. It is 
given by Niemeyer in his collection of Reformed Confessions, pp. 
123-310. Cf. Thomasius-Seeberg II, 547L Seeberg II, 417. Loofs, 
p. 896. Hering I, I96f. 



22 

the reader to the last chapter of these essays. But for a 
brief characterization we may say that Calvin did not 
hesitate to call Zwingli's merely figurative conception 
profane. 9 The signs in the Sacrament are not empty, 
but they offer what they signify. As bread and wine 
nourish the body so Christ's Body and Blood nourish the 
soul. Calvin even speaks of a presence of Christ's Body 
in the Eucharist. But it is not a real Presence, because 
the Body is far removed from us in space ; it is a presence 
through the Holy Spirit when we have faith and in faith 
are drawn to Christ. Even then the body is not received, 
but the spirtual influences that proceed from the Christ 
in whose presence the believer is. Seeberg remarks "The 
difference is always equally manifest — Calvin having in 
mind the spiritual influence, and Luther the real bodily 
presence." 10 



II. THE FIRST CONFLICT BETWEEN CALVINISM AND 
LUTHERANISM. 



Calvin's influence soon began to be felt outside of 
Switzerland, especially in England, France and the Neth- 
erlands. It also extended to Germany, the activities of 
Bucer in connection with the Wittenberg Concord offer- 
ing the point of connection. At first there was on the 
part of the Lutherans no protest against the Confessio 
Tigurinus, nor against any writing of Calvin that had 
appeared before the publication of this new Confession. 
In 1540 he had published a French tract on the Supper, 
which he republished in Latin in the year of Luther's 
death (1546). Here he had emphasized a real presence 
and a real receiving of Body and Blood. But in 1548 he 
published this writing in a new edition with larger em- 

9 Corp. Ref. XXXIX, 438. 

10 II, 414; cf. Calvin's Institutions IV, 17, §5- Hering I, i84ff., 
197. 



23 

phasis upon a purely spiritual receiving. 11 Some may 
not yet have been f amliar with these writings ; others — 
the followers of Melanchthon — favored the Strasburg 
type of teaching, which seemed simply to be reflected in 
the position of Calvin ; and again others, who were guard- 
ing zealously the purity of Luther's doctrine, may have 
been waiting for some one to take up the controversy. 

This one finally appeared when in 1552 Joachim West- 
phal, of Hamburg, began his polemical activity against 
Calvin. 12 The first publication of Westphal 13 was fol- 
lowed the next year by another writing 14 of the same au- 
thor. Then something occurred that brought Calvin, 
who so far had ignored Westphal, into active warfare 
against the Lutheran party in Germany. John von 
Lasko, a Pole, who as an adherent of Calvin had been 
serving a Protestant congregation in London under Ed- 
ward IV, had to flee from "Bloody Mary" (1553), and he, 
with 175 members of his congregation made application 
for permission to settle on the continent. He applied 
first in Denmark, but was refused. With the same result 
the fugitives applied in a number of cities in the North- 
ern part of Germany. The Lutheran governments every- 
where feared that Lasko's outspoken dissent from the 
Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper might result in 
schismatic movements that would destroy the peace of 
Church and State. In that day religious union was re- 
garded as necessary to political union. This treatment 
of Lasko and his followers became the occasion for Cal- 
vin to attack the Lutheran doctrine of the Eucharist. He 
did it in his Defensio, etc., of 1555, 15 and in writings that 

ii Cf. Koestlin-Kawerau, Martin Luther II, 577. Hering I, 196. 

12 See Kurtz, Church History, 1888, §141, 10; latest German edi- 
tion (14th, 1906) §161, 10. Kawerau in W. Moeller, Kirchenge- 
schichte III, 186, 281. 

13 The title was Farrago Confuseanarum, etc., 5 volumes. For 
a characterization of the work see Kawerau in R. E. XXI, 186, 36. 

14 Recta Fides, etc. 

15 Printed in Corp. Ref. XXXVII, iff.; cf. Kawerau in R. E. 
XXI, 187, 33- 



u 

followed 16 with such superciliousness of spirit 17 that it 
developed into a heated controversy between Lutherans 
and Calvinists, with many theologians of both sides par- 
ticipating. 18 Calvin replied in a third and last writing, 
Ultima Admonitio, etc., 19 in which, among other things 
he said that he received the Augsburg Confession in the 
sense as it had been interpreted by its own author, mean- 
ing by that the Variata edition which he, with others, 
had subscribed at the Colloquy in Worms, 1540. 20 This 
is especially interesting, because it shows that Calvin 
wanted to be a Lutheran. And we can see how the Lu- 
therans, in their struggle with Calvinism, were driven to 
demand the recognition of the Unaltered edition of the 
Augsburg Confession, the Invariata. 21 

The silence of Melanchthon in this whole controversy 
gave him and his followers in general the name "Crypto- 
Calvinists." Since the days of Calvin's stay at Stras- 
burg, Melanchthon had begun more and more to lean to 
him, particularly with regard to the Supper. So we can 
understand how this controversy embarrassed him. The 
embarrassment was increased still more when Gallus, of 
Regensburg, published a book in which he collated from 
former writings of Melanchthon how he nad expressed 
himself against Zwingli's doctrine of the Lord's Supper. 22 

16. Secunda Defensio in Corp. Ref. XXXVII, 4iff.; cf. R. E. 
XXI, 188, 26. 

17 Admitted even by an advocate of Calvin as Hering, I, 203. 

18 Kruske, Joh. V. Lasko und der Sakramentsstreit. Leipzig, 
1001. As to the alleged wrong done to Lasko and his fellow- 
fugitives, Kawerau (R. E. XXI, 187, 8) asks whether under like 
circumstances Calvinistic governments would not have acted as 
did the Lutherans. In that day Church and civil government 
were so interwoven that dissension in the Church always meant 
disturbance for the government. We would also remark that 
in reporting this affair it should never have been omitted that 
Lutherans in the different cities kept the fugitives for weeks and 
supported them to the best of their abilitv. See Hering I, 200. 

19 Corp. Ref. XXXVII, 137ft-, cf. R. E. XXI, 188, 31, 

20 R. E. XXI, 187, 59. Kawerau in Moeller's Kirchengeschichte 
III, 141. Salig, Augsb'g Conf. I, 491. Staehelin, Joh. Calvin I, 234. 
Corp. Ref. IV, 33ft. ; XLIII, 305. 

21 On this subject cf. Neve, Introduction to Lutheran Symbol- 
ics, pp. 95ff- 

22 R. E. XXI, 188, 27. 



2* 



A similar publication was issued by Westphal. Later in 
this chapter (sub 7) we shall discuss Melanchthonianism 
in its relation to Calvinism more in detail and in a con- 
nected way. 

The step of Westphal of publicly calling attention to 
the fundamental difference between Calvin's view of the 
Lord's Supper and that held by Luther has been criticized 
by Reformed writers up to the present time. 23 But 
Westphal certainly has been justified by history even to 
this day. Among the many Lutheran synods of America 
there can be no longer union except on the basis of the old 
historic Lutheranism with regard to the doctrine of the 
Lord's Supper. Much as we may regret the bitterness 
of the conflict, history, as viewed from the standpoint of 
Lutheranism, has shown that Westphal performed a most 
needed service to the Church. Kawerau says: "If he 
had not done it some one else would." 24 It opened the eyes 
of Lutheran' Germany to the silent propaganda for Cal- 
vin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper, and it revealed the 
fact that Melanchthon and his followers were willing to 
trade Luther's conception for the teaching of Calvin. It 
taught the Lutherans the necessity for insisting upon the 
Unaltered Augsburg Confession. In brief, it spelled the 
beginning of the end of Calvin's dominion over Ger- 
many, 25 or at least limited it to a nanow territory. 26 
Calvin who, in his replies to Westphal, wrote as if West- 
phal's activity was of no account certainly had deceived 
himself as to the vitality of the old Lutheran position. 27 



III. THE INROADS OF CALVINISM UPON LUTHERAN 
TERRITORY. 

We can easily understand that Calvin's view of the 

23 Cf. Dalton, Miscellanen, 1905, p. 302&. 

24 R. E. XXI, 186, 60. 

25 Kruske, ut supra, p. 83. 

26 Kawerau in R. E. XXI, 186, 57. 

27 See Hering, p. 203. 



26 



Sacrament maintained itself in the south-west of Ger- 
many where for decades Bucerism had had its adherents. 
But it extended also to other parts of Germany, to Bre- 
men, for instance, where a conflict occurred between Har- 
denberg and his strictly Lutheran opponents. 28 The po- 
sition taken by Hardenberg is of special interest. He 
corresponded much with Melanchthon, and, when driven 
to a definite statement, he rejected Luther's doctrine of 
the Real Presence, refusing to accept by oath the tenth 
article of the Augsburg Confession. He declared that he 
could accept the Bible only. The Augsburg Confession, 
he said, was a product of the time, composed to please the 
emperor and the pope, this being particularly true of 
Art. X which contains too much of the Roman doctrine of 
transubstantiation. 29 

We cannot here relate the whole history of how Bre- 
men was lost to the Lutheran Church, but must refer the 
reader to the literature on that subject. Pezel, a Me- 
lanchthonian of Wittenberg, was called as pastor. He 
introduced a catechism which taught Calvinism under 
Melanchthonian forms of expression. Later the Heidel- 
berg Catechism was accepted. At first Bremen refused 
to be called Calvinistic, but soon the ministers accepted 
even Calvin's doctrine of Predestination and Bremen 
was regularly represented at the Synod of Dort. 30 

As Hardenberg was out of place in north Ger- 
many so was Hesshusius a misfit in the south-west (at 
Heidelberg) where moderation would have done better 
service for the Lutheran Church. 31 Hesshusius was one 
of the most combative of Lutheran theologians. When 

28 Read in Kurtz, Engl, edition, §144, 2; last German edition 
(1006), §152, 2. Moeller-Kawerau, Kirchengeschichte III (1907), p. 
306. Tschackert, Entstehung, etc., pp. 537ff. Cf. Hering, ut supra, I, 
204-212; also article "Hardenberg" in R. E. VII. 

29 Cf. Hering I, 205f. 

30 Since 1638, through the efforts of a Danish prince, the Dom 
was given over to the many citizens that had refused to leave the 
Lutheran Church. 

31 Cf. Richards, Heidelberg Catechism, 1913, p. 39ff. 



27 

his arguments were not received he threatened with phys- 
ical violence, and he even led his followers into riots. 32 
At the end of his life he regretted that he had not re- 
buked more severely the errorists (die Rottengeister) .. 
Somewhere in these discussions we must try to find an 
explanation of the severity of Lutheran polemics that 
characterized the controversies of the sixteenth and 
seventeenth centuries. Here we cannot permit the in- 
terruption. Let us see how the Palatinate was lost to 
the Lutheran Church. Elector Frederick III. had dis- 
missed Hesshusius and had begun to feel opposed to a 
strict Lutheranism. At the Day of Princes at Naumburg 
he favored the Augustawi Variata as against the Invari- 
ata. 33 He studied for himself the different views on the 
Lord's Supper. Finally the arguments of a physician 
(who had written a book on the subject) together with 
a Theological Estimate (Gutachten) from Melanchthon 
(Corp. Ref. IX, 960), helped him to decide for Calvinism 
(1561). 34 Now Caspar Olevianus and Zach. Ursinus, the 
makers of the Heidelberg Catechism, were called. The 
church service was adapted to Calvinistjc ideals: Paint- 
ings, baptismal fonts, altars were removed, and the 
organs closed. The opposing ministers were driven from 
the country and Reformed ministers from other coun- 
tries were put in their place. 35 The loss of the Palatinate 
was a severe blow to the Lutheran Church. 

The crypto-Calvinistic agitations were also extended 
to Electoral Saxony where Melanchthon and his school at 
Wittenberg had been working into the hands of Calvin 
with all kinds of machinations. 36 The repulsive charac- 

32 Hackenschmidt in R. E. VIII, p. 9, 11; p. 10, 20. 

33 See Kawerau in R. E. XIII, 664. 

34 Hering I, 221. Melanchthon wrote: "It is not difficult, but 
dangerous to answer." Cf. Kahnis, Der Innere Gang des Deutschen 
Protestantismus I, 54; cf. Corp. Ref. IX, 961. Richards, Heidelberg 
Catechism, p. 4if. 

35 Moeller-Kawerau III, 30iff.; Kurtz, Engl. ed. §144, 1; German 
ed. (1906) §152, 1. Tschackert, 539; article on "Tilemann Heshu- 
sius" in R. E. VIII. 

36 Read Kurtz, Engl., §141, 10, 13; German, §161, 4, 10, 13. 
Fritschel, Formula of Concord, pp. 52, 177, 181, 1836*. 



28 



ter of their duplicity in this propaganda is nowhere more 
graphically described than by Geo. J. Fritschel, in his 
book, "Formula of Concord." 57 To be historically fair 
it must be admitted that there was, on the part of the 
Melanchthonians, an element of self-defense. 38 The 
Flacianists were setting the stage for their destruction. 
But their aim was, under the guise of general Bucerian 
and Melanchthonian terms to displace Luther's doctrine 
of the Real Presence by the doctrine of Calvin, and they 
knew that by doing so they were deceiving the Elector 
August of whom they knew that he was trusting them to 
preserve the genuine Lutheran doctrine. 39 The anony- 
mously published Exegesis Perspicua, given in extract by 
Fritschel (pp. 189-193), finally brought their plan into 
the open. A great protest arose. The eyes of the elec- 
tor were opened with the result that the Melanchthonians 
were driven from Wittenberg and their leaders impris- 
oned. 40 A thanksgiving service in all churches and a 
memorial coin celebrated the victory of Lutheranism 
over Calvinism in Saxony (1574). 41 A new attempt un- 
der Elector Christian I, who had married into the family 
of the Elector of the Palatinate met at first with success, 
but it came to naught under the prince that followed him. 
Here chancellor Nicholas Krell had been the moving 
power for the Calvinistic party. He was incarcerated and 
after ten years of prison life executed. In this case, how- 
ever, political conditions contributed to the tragedy. But 
that among the charges his confessional activities were 
conspicuous may be judged from the blade of the sword 
with which he was decapitated, which is shown in the 
Dresden Museum, and which bears the inscription : "Cave 

2,7 Luth. Publ. Soc'y, Phila., 1916, pp. 182-93. 

38 Kawerau in R. E. XV, 327, 44. 

39 R- E. XV, 328, 5. 

40 Peucer, the son-in-law of Melanchthon, who as physician 
and trusted adviser of the elector had been the right hand of the 
Melanchthonians had to suffer in prison for twelve years. 

41 See Moeller-Kawerau III, 290ft". Kutrz, Engl., §141, 10. 
Tschackert 548f. 



Calviniane." The records of this execution constitute a 
dark page in the history of Lutheranism. 42 

IV. A FEW CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE APPRECIATION OF 
THE CONFLICT. 



Judged from a large view-point it can not be denied 
that in this whole conflict Lutheranism was on the de- 
fensive. Historic Lutheranism had to fight for its life. 
There was a plan to crowd it out of Germany and to sup- 
plant it by another type of Protestantism. The Calvin- 
ists wanted to be recognized as the real Lutheranism, in 
spite of the fact that they taught only a "spiritual pres- 
ence" in place of Luther's "Real Presence." The differ- 
ence between the two conceptions of the Lord's Supper 
was clouded by the employment of Bucero-Melanchthon- 
ian forms of expression. It was this plan that Luther- 
anism had to expose in order to save its own life. Very 
characteristic is the case of Frederick III in the Palati- 
nate. When the Lutheran estates at the diet of Augs- 
burg, in 1564, accused him that he had broken the Augs- 
burg Religious Peace Treaty of 1555 by introducing Cal- 
vinism into his country, he replied that he had never read 
Calvin's writings, that he did not know what Calvinism 
was, and that he still held to the Augsburg Confession 
(Variata), as he had done at Naumburg. 43 And yet only 
the year before he had publicly introduced the Heidelberg 
Catechism ! There was certainly something to be cleared 
up. 

It may seem strange that in our discussions we are al- 
ways speaking of the Lord's Supper, as if this were the 
only distinguishing doctrine between Lutheranism and 
Calvinism. But we must remember that we are dealing 

42 See article "Krell" in R. E. XI, 85ft. Read Kurtz, Engl., §141, 
13. Moeller-Kawerau III, 297. 

43 Cf. Kurtz, German ed. §152, 1. Richards, ut supra, p. 44. 



so 

with the relation between Lutherans and Reformed in 
Germany. In Germany it was, especially in the first 
stages of the conflict, exclusively the doctrine of the Sup- 
per that appeared as the point of division; predestination 
has there always been evaded as a subject of contro- 
versy. It is true that the Reformed Church of Germany 
to-day has forms of piety, which show the relation with 
the Reformed Churches in other countries, but at the 
'time here under consideration Calvinism was yet in its 
formative period. Its principles had not yet worked 
themselves out. The scientific process of generalization 
and classification, on the part of observing historians, had 
not even begun. More time must elapse before such 
could take place. But on the doctrine of the Supper 
many minds had been awakened through Luther's contro- 
versies with Zwingli, Carlstadt and Schwenkfeld, and by 
the movements that led to the Wittenberg Concord ; and 
this doctrine, therefore, readily offered itself as a pulse 
of the doctrinal life of the two Churches. (Cf. p. 13f.) 



V. THE FINAL SEPARATION BETWEEN LUTHERANISM AND 

CALVINISM IN THE FORMULA OF CONCORD AND IN 

THE NEUSTADT ADMONITION. 



We have seen that at first Calvin was looked upon by 
many as an "Upper-German Lutheran" and his view on 
the Supper had a silent propaganda in Germany. We 
'have also seen that finally there arose a controversy in 
Which it was made clear that Calvin's doctrine of the 
Supper was fundamentally different from that of Luther 
; — a controversy that was intensified through the crypto- 
Calvinistic agitations which led to the loss of the Palati- 
nate to Lutheranism, with Electoral Saxony in danger of 
.being lost also. Now we shall see how the consciousness 
of that fundamental difference which resulted from those 
controversies was expressed in a Lutheran Confession, 



31 



the Formula of Concord, to which the Reformed replied 
in a very significant writing, the Neostadiensium Admo- 
nito. 

We cannot here discuss the Formula of Concord as a 
whole. For such a study we must refer to Fritschel's 
book which has been quoted before. 44 Here we have to 
do with the Formula only in so far as it gave decisions on 
the problems that were under discussion in the contro- 
versies between Lutherans and Reformed. 

The Formula of Concord, which was first published in 
1577, in the form of little monographs, states the posi- 
tion of Lutheranism in twelve articles; of these, Articles 
VII ,on the Eucharist, VIII, on the Person of Christ, IX, 
on the Descent to Hell, and XI, on Predestination, cover 
the controversies. But since we have in these investiga- 
tions limited ourselves to the "Union Movements Between 
Lutherans and Reformed" in Germany (which in their 
confessional statements, particularly in the Brandenburg 
Confessions, have excluded Calvin's doctrine of Predesti- 
nation and even in the Heidelberg Catechism have evaded 
a discussion of it) we can confine ourselves to a discussion 
of the essential features of Articles VII, VIII, and IX. 
It is true that the spirit of legalism, an outstanding char- 
acteristic of the Reformed Church, finds a remarkable 
corrective in the articles of the Formula which deal with 
the relation of Law and Gospel (V and VI) . Neverthe- 
less these articles were historically not occasioned by po- 
sitions of the Swiss Reformers. Moreover, legalism as a 
product of Calvin's principle of the sovereignty of God is 
more evident among the Reformed Churches outside of 
the German Reformed — we mention especially the Puri- 
tans. It will, therefore, be better to consider this feature 
in the discussions of the last chapter of these essays where 
we shall deal with the Reformed Churches in general in 
their doctrinal and practical distinction from Lutheran- 
ism. 



44 Geo. J. Fritschel, The Formula of Concord, 1916, Philadel- 
phia, Pa. An extract of this book is contained in J. L. Neve, In- 
troduction to Lutheran Symbolics, pp. 384-428. 



32 

In Art. VII the Formula of Concord uses painstaking 
care to guard the interpretation of Art. X of the Augs- 
burg Confession on the Lord's Supper by describing the 
kind of real presence that was meant by Luther in his 
controversy with the Sacramentarians, and in his agree- 
ment with the Upper Germans in the Wittenberg Con- 
cord. The Catechism and especially the Smalcald Ar- 
ticles are referred to. The bodily presence is taught upon 
the basis of the words of institution. 45 Thus it is taught 
that, on account of the sacramental union between the 
earthly and the heavenly elements, Christ's Body and 
Blood are truly and essentially present and received with 
the bread and wine. It is, however, not a "physical or 
earthly" presence. 46 From such a view of the real pres- 
ence it follows that communicants receive the Body of 
Christ "with the mouth" (ore) which, however, does not 
mean a capernaitic eating (manducation) , for it takes 
place in a supernatural, incomprehensible, heavenly way. 
With this sacramental mode of receiving Christ's essen- 
tial Body by worthy and unworthy communicants, there 
goes also a spiritual receiving by faith only, which can 
also take place outside of the use of the Sacrament. 47 The 
pious, indeed, receive the Body and Blood of Christ as an 
infallible pledge and assurance that their sins are surely 
forgiven, and that Christ dwells in them and wishes to be 
efficacious in them. 48 The discussions in this article are 
so thorough and exhaustive that all loopholes for the 
vagueness of Melanchthon, for the suggestions of Bucer, 
and for the definitions of Calvin are stopped up. There 
can be no mistake henceforth as to what Lutheranism is 
in distinction from Calvinism. To have made this clear 
in every respect is the significance of this article in the 
Formula of Concord. 49 

45 §§46-59. Our references are to H. E. Jacobs', Peoples' Ed. of 
the Book of Concord. 

46 §§5,6; cf. 17. 

47 §§i5, 16; 41, 42; 63-66. 

48 §§63, 44- 

49 Cf. Seeberg, History of Doctrines, II, 386ft". Tschackert, 
Entstehung, 549!?. Fritschel, Book of Concord 194-202. 



33 



But the Formula carried its decisions back to the doc- 
trine of the person of Christ where the root of the dif- 
ference had already appeared in the controversy be- 
tween Luther and Zwingli. The latter had taken the po- 
sition that according to His Body Christ cannot be pres- 
ent in the Supper, because omnipresence belongs to the 
divine nature only. Calvin agreed with Zwingli. Here 
the Formula of Concord, in its system of the personal 
union and the communicatio idiomatum, teaches the ge- 
nus majestaticum according to which there are communi- 
cated to Christ's human nature certain attributes of the 
divine nature so that the whole Christ, undivided in one 
person, can be and is present where in His Word He 
promises to be present. 50 This doctrine is proved by quo- 
tations from the Scriptures. 51 As to the question whether 
such a communication is possible the Formula answers 
characteristically: "No one can know better or more 
thoroughly than the Lord Christ Himself." (§53). We 
cannot here review all the statements and arguments of 
the Formula on the person of Christ and, therefore, have 
contented ourselves with what is especially germane to 
our general discussion. 52 

50 §§16, 17; cf. corresponding parts in the "Solid Declaration." 
This feature of Luther's Christology was not a mere invention for 
the purpose of simply furnishing a support for the doctrine of 
the Real Presence, as Schaff and many others have viewed it (see 
Creeds of Christendom I, 288). What Luther wished to establish 
with his strong emphasis upon the personal union was nothing 
less than the full value of the atonement wrought by Christ, the 
God-man. If the humanity of Christ is so separated from His di- 
vinity that there is no real communion, no communication of the 
divine attributes to the humanity, then there is no real validity in 
the suffering of Christ. Luther says : "If the devil should per- 
suade me that in Christ a mere man was crucified and died for me, 
then I would be lost, but if I can attach to it the importance that 
Christ died for me as real God and man then such doctrine will 
outweigh and destroy sin, death, hell and all misery." (Compare 
the exhaustive treatment of this subject in Plitt, Einleitung in die 
Augustana II, 79-102, in particular p. 95. 

51 §§54-59. 

52 Cf. Seeberg and Tschackert ut supra. Fritschel, pp. 203-212 
Tholuck, Christliches Leben im 17. Jahrhundert, p. 2iff. 



34 

In the brief Article IX, on the Descent to Hell, we can 
also see the Lutheran emphasis upon the personal union 
of God and man in Christ. "The entire person, God and 
man, after the burial descended into hell, conquered the 
devil, destroyed the power of hell and took from the devil 
all his might." 

Among the replies to the Formula by the Reformed the 
Newstad Admonition (Neostadiensium Admonitio) was 
especially significant, for two reasons: (1) This book, 
covering 455 quarto pages, was written with great thor- 
oughness by Zach. Ursinus, one of the authors of the 
Heidelberg Catechism; and (2) it was written at the in- 
struction of Count Casimir, of Neustadt in the Palatinate 
and published in the name of the Newstad theologians. 53 
These theologians at first labored for a Melanchthonian 
middle type of Protestantism, but in fact found them- 
selves entirely on the side of Calvin, agreeing with him 
even in the doctrine of Predestination although not press- 
ing this point to the extent that was done in other coun- 
tries. 

An impression of the Newstad Admonition may be had 
by a mere quotation of the captions to the twelve chap- 
ters: (1) The person of Christ, a review of the true 
doctrine; (2) The Lord's Supper, a review of the true 
doctrine; (3) Refutation of the false accusation of our 
churches with regard to false dogmas; (4) The author- 
ity of the Augsburg Confession; (5) The true meaning 
of the Augsburg Confession ; (6) Regarding the authority 
of Dr. Luther; (7) Concerning the unjust condemnation 
of our doctrine in the Book of Concord ; (8) Proof of false 
assertions in the Book of Concord; (9) Proof of contra- 
dictions in the Book of Concord; (10) The procedure of 

53 After the death of Elector Frederick III. of the Palatinate 
(1576), who had introduced Calvinism, the city of Heidelberg with 
the University returned for a time to Lutheranism under the reign 
of his son, Elector Ludwig (1576-83). His brother, John Casimir, 
gathered about him at Newstad the Reformed theologians who 
were expelled from Heidelberg. Chief of them was Ursinus; 
others were Junius, Tossanus, Zanchius. Cf. Moeller-Kawerau 
III, 303*. 



35 

the theologians in bringing about concord, and the part 
of a Christian magistrate in church controversies; (11) 
The inconvenience in the carrying out of this concord; 
(12) An epilogue on the true method for establishing 
Christian concord in the churches. 

In chapter two the Real Presence in the sense of Lu- 
ther is rejected. With regard to the person of Christ in 
chapter one it is declared that the essential attributes of 
the divine nature cannot be communicated everywhere to 
the human nature; the accidental attributes only, which 
do not constitute Christ's divine nature, are given to his 
human nature in the state of glory. In chapters eight 
and nine the Lutheran position is charged with incon- 
sistency and with being in conflict with the Scriptures. 
Chapters four and five are of special interest, because 
they contribute to a correct apprehension of the German 
Reformed. The author declares that he does not reject 
the Augsburg Confession (Variata) y but he protests 
against a binding subscription, which can be claimed only 
by the Bible. Confessions can be subscribed to only so far 
{quatenus) as they agree with the Scriptures. 54 While 
the Admonition has no deliverance on predestination as 
such, yet we know that Ursinus stood with Calvin on this 
subject, as is evident in chapter nine. In the manner of 
the strict predestinarians of succeeding ages Luther's 
writing against Erasmus on free-will is quoted against 
Art. XI of the Formula on predestination. 55 

This Newstad Admonition was first published in Latin 
and then translated into German. At the instruction of 
the three Lutheran electors of Brandenburg, Saxony and 
the Palatinate the theologians Chemnitz, Selnecker and 

54 Here the position of the Lutherans with their demand of a 
quia subscription is usually misunderstood. For a review of this 
question, see Neve, Introduction to Lutheran Symbolics, pp. 22-30; 
cf. also article "Orthodoxie" in R. E. XIV, p. 496. 

55 Cf. Warfield, The Plan of Salvation, p. 44, note 13. See our 
explanation in the last of these discourses. 



36 

Kirchner replied in the so-called "Erfurt Book" of sev- 
eral volumes (1583). 56 

Let us repeat : In the Formula of Concord and in the 
News tad Admonition the consciousness of the funda- 
mental difference between Lutheranism and Calvinism 
was expressed as a finality. The breach became perma- 
nent. Henceforth the two tendencies of Protestantism, 
the realistic and the spiritualistic, stand opposed to each 
other as Church against Church. 

From now on we have also the names "Lutherans" and 
"Reformed" as adopted by the churches themselves and 
meaning what they mean to-day. The term "Lutheran" 
had been used by the Romanists since 1520 as a designa- 
tion of all adherents of the Reformation. After the in- 
troduction of Calvinism into the Palatinate the distinc- 
tion is made between "Lutherans" and "Calvinists." But 
after 1585 the followers of Luther began to call them- 
selves "Lutherans." 57 The followers of Calvin refused 
to be called Calvinists; they called themselves "Re- 
formed," intending thereby to indicate that they aimed at 
a reformation also of Lutheranism in Germany which had 
kept too much of the Roman leaven. 58 



VI. FURTHER LOSS OF LUTHERAN TERRITORY. 



Before we can devote ourselves to a study of the union 
movements we will have to make clear to what extent Cal- 
vinism succeeded in gaining ground in Lutheran Ger- 
many. 

Immediately after the death of Melanchthon an in- 
creasing influence of Calvin was felt in Germany particu- 

56 See the articles on "Neostadiensium Admonitio" in Meusel, 
Kirchliches Handlexikon IV, 756 and in R. E. XIII, 70of. Cf. arti- 
cle on "Ursinus" in Meusel VII, 26. 

57 Cf. Loofs, Dogmengeschichte, p. 928; cf. Heppe, Ursprung 
und Geschichte der Bezeichnung reformierter imd lutherischer 
Konfession." 

58 Cf. Moeller-Kawerau III, p. 300. Richards, p. 44. 



37 

larly where there had been sympathy with Melanchthon's 
views. Calvin's Institutiones come into successful com- 
petition with Melanchthon's Loci. In quite a number of 
dominions the doors were opened to Calvinism. We 
have already heard of the Palatinate and Bremen, but 
further inroads were made. 

(a). Nassau. Melanchthonians from Wittenberg and 
Reformed theologians from the Palatinate were employed 
by Count John VI for the introduction of Calvinism into 
Nassau-Dillenburg. In 1578, at the Dillenburg Synod, 
the Vai*iata was accepted as an authentic interpretation 
of the Invariata, and the church services were arranged 
according to Reformed ideals. Then (1581), the Heidel- 
berg Catechism was adopted. At Herford a Reformed 
university was established. A number of small domin- 
ions in the neighborhood (Sayn, Wittgenstein, Solms- 
Braunfels, Isenburg, Wied) joined in the movement 
which reached its conclusion in the Herborn General 
Synod of 1586. 59 

(b) . Anhalt. John George I, was among those who 
refused to sign the Formula of Concord. A declaration 
on the Lord's Supper was made that kept itself within 
Melanchthonian forms of expression. The first step of 
the prince in the Calvinization of the land was taken by 
removing the practice of exorcism in Baptism. John 
Arndt, who felt that he could not yield to the decree, had 
to leave the country. After the prince had married a 
daughter of the Reformed John Casimir (of the Palati- 
nate) he proceeded to put the Reformed Church service in 
place of the Lutheran, and Luther's Catechism was re- 
moved. Ministers and congregations resisted. It was 
declared that the intention was only to remove some rem- 
nants of Roman superstition. It was to be a "reforma- 
tion." It was here where the term "Reformed" as a 
name for the adherents of Calvin in Germany came first 
into use. In connection with the adoption of the Confes- 
sio Anhaltina, it was officially declared that the country 

59 Moeller-Kawerau III, 305f. 



ss 

had not ceased to stand upon the Augsburg Confession 
(Variata) . But in reality it was a mild Calvinism. Lu- 
theranism was restored only in Anhalt-Zerbst (since 
1644) under Prince John who had been trained by his 
mother in the Lutheran faith. 60 

(c). Hesse-Cassel. Landgrave Philip, of Hesse, had 
died in 1567. The little country was divided in the old 
German way between his four sons. 61 Here we are in- 
terested only in Hesse-Cassel (Lower Hesse) under Wil- 
liam IV. He was decidedly unionistic in his church 
policy, like his father had been. So he refused to accept 
the Formula of Concord, kept the Corpus Doctrinae 
Philippicum and paved the way for the introduction of 
Calvinism. This was completely carried out under his 
son Moritz (since 1592), and political complications only 
kept him from carrying out his plan also with regard to 
other parts of Hesse. Moritz was untiring in his propa- 
ganda for Calvinism in other countries (in Brandenburg, 
Schleswig-Holstein, Lippe) , 62 

(d). Lippe. Into this little thoroughly Lutheran do- 
minion Count Simon VI introduced Calvinism (1602). 
The chief promoter was the General Superintendent H. 
Dreckmeyer. The change was made by force of arms 
against much resistance of clergy and people. 63 One city 
(Lemgo) withstood for eleven years and saved its Lu- 
theranism. 

(e). The Conversion of Elector Sigismund of Bran- 
denburg to Calvinism was an occurrence of the greatest 
consequence for German Lutheranism in coming cen- 
turies. The grandfather of John Sigismund, Elector 
John George, was a strict Lutheran. He subscribed the 
Formula of Concord and even made his grandson sign a 
pledge that he would remain faithful to the Lutheran 
Church (1593). But already the father of John Sigis- 

60 Kurtz, English, §144, 3; German ed. §152, 3. Moeller-Kawe- 
rau III, p. 307. 

61 How that was done, see Kurtz, Engl., §154, 1. 

62 Moeller-Kawerau III, 3o8ff. Kurtz, English, §154, 1; German 
§152, 5. Hering, Unionsversuche I, 258ff. 

63 Kurtz, Engl., §154, 2. 



39 

mund, Joachim Frederick (1598-1608), had begun to de- 
part from Lutheranism. It came in connection with the 
special policy of the Hohenzollern of striving after more 
territory. His eyes were also upon the country along the 
Rhine (Kleve) which was Reformed. The relation to 
electoral Saxony changed, and there was an approach to 
the Palatinate (1587). His sons were sent to the Stras- 
burg university. Marriage relations with the Palatinate 
followed. Sigismund studied Hospinian's Concordia Dis- 
cors. 6 * In addition to this he came under the influence of 
Moritz of Hesse 65 as also under the influence of theologi- 
ans who had gone on from Melanchthonianism to Calvin- 
ism (such as Finck). In 1613 John Sigismund publicly 
changed his confession by receiving, together with fifty- 
four others, in the Dom at Berlin the Lord's Supper after 
the Reformed manner. (His wife Anna had refused to 
join). This step of the elector was followed by much 
excitement oh the part of the people, because according 
to the existing law (cuius regio, ejus religio) a prince 
had the authority to make his subjects follow him or force 
them to emigrate. He did not make use of this power. 
He only forbade polemics in the pulpit. An attempt was 
made to replace the Augsburg Confession Invariata by 
the Variata, but in face of threatening opposition the 
plan had to be abandoned. In 1614 Sigismund published 
his Confession (Confessio Sigismundi) as an invitation 
for all who would join him. The Confession was in- 
tended as an improvement of the Augsburg Confession 
and as a reformation of Lutheranism from remnants of 
Romanism. The doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ's 
Body was rejected, also the practice of exorcism in Bap- 
tism and the use of wafers instead of the breaking of the 
bread in the communion. The Reformed doctrine of the 
Sacraments was adopted, but with regard to predestina- 
tion the universality of grace was insisted on. At Frank- 

64 Written 1607 as a refutation of the Formula of Concord, to 
which L. Hutter, of Wittenberg, in 1614, opposed his Concordia 
Concors. 

65 Cf. above, sub. c, and Kurtz, Engl., §154, 1. 



40 

fort (on the Oder) a university was established which 
was practically Reformed and, therefore, avoided by the 
clergy who patronized Wittenberg. 66 



VII. THE CHARACTER OF THE REFORMED CHURCH IN GER- 
MANY, PARTICULARLY ITS RELATION TO MELANCH- 



The question is whether there is an essential difference 
between Calvinism as we have it in other countries and 
the Reformed Church in Germany. Has the German Re- 
formed Church been essentially modified by Melanch- 
thonianism? This question is of special interest in a 
critical review of the union movements between this 
Church and the Lutherans. We refer to the following 
literature: In Protestantische Realencyclopaedie (R. 
E.) the articles " Pi^otestantismus" by Kattenbusch (XVI, 
162f.), "Philiyyismus" by Kawerau (XV, 322ff.), and 
"MeUinchtkon" by Kirn (XII, 562, 12ff.) ; also Stahl, Die 
Lutherische Kircke und die Union, 2nd ed., pp. 107-123. 
H. Schmid, Geschichte der Synkretistischen Streitigkei- 
ten, pp. lOff ) , G. W. Richards, The Heidelberg Catechism, 
1913, pp. 87-105. 

Before we can enter into a discussion of this problem in- 
telligently we need to make very clear what is meant by 
Melanchthonianism. By Melanchthonianism we under- 
stand what the Germans are accustomed to express by 
"Philipism," namely the doctrinal elements in the teach- 
ings of Melanchthon, on which he departed from the 
teachings of Luther and with which he formed a school 
against the stricter Lutherans (Gnesio-Lutherans) . In 

66 Moeller-Kawerau III, 3ioff. Kurtz, English, §154, 3; German, 
§152, 7. Schaff, Creeds I, 554-63. Wangemann, Joh. Sigismund und 
Paul Gerhardt, pp. 1-100. Neve, article "Paul Gerhardt in the 
Church Troubles of His Time" in Lutheran Quarterly 1907, pp. 
365ff- 



41 



this discussion we must confine ourselves to matters in 
which he approached Bucer and Calvin : the Lord's Sup- 
per and the Person of Christ. We have to keep in mind 
that Melanchthon had no doctrine of the Eucharist of his 
own. It was in his nature to evade the controversy rather 
than to solve the problem. He preferred to leave conflict- 
ing principles untouched. There is something eclectic about 
him. 67 It cannot be said that he ever adopted Calvin's 
doctrine of the Lord's Supper, especially its characteris- 
tic formulas of the exaltation of the believing soul into 
heaven and of the communication of Christ's humanity 
to the believer through the Spirit. 68 Neither did he re- 
ject it. But his approach to Calvin is in the conception 
of a personal presence of Christ in the Supper. This he 
had taken over from Bucer. He liked this conception be- 
cause he thought that he could use it as a formula for 
union. We must agree when Stahl says: Melanchthon's 
conception of a general presence of Christ in the Supper 
is after all Calvin's doctrine not openly expressed. There 
is no middle doctrine between Luther and Calvin. As 
soon as the Lutheran view is abandoned, the Reformed 
view is the only thing that is left. Calvin, Bucer, Me- 
lanchthon mark only different theological types of the 
Reformed doctrine. 69 A characteristic of the Bucero- 
Melanchthonian expressions is their elasticity. As to the 
real doctrine which Melanchthon held for himself his- 
torians are not agreed. Kim 70 calls attention to the fact 
that the pupils of Melanchthon have interpreted their 
teacher differently on this subject (Peucer different from 
Hemmig and Major). But the fact that Melanchthon 
supported Hardenberg in Bremen 71 and that through his 
written estimate (Gutachten) he was instrumental in con- 
firming Elector Frederick III in views 72 that took the 

67 Stahl, p. io8f. 

68 Institutiones IV, 17, 9, 10, 18. 

69 Die Luth. Kirche u. d. Union, p. inf. 

70 R. E. XII, 526, 20. 

71 R. E. VII, 412. Corp. Ref. IX, I9ff. 

72 Corp. Ref. IX, 96off. 



42 



Palatinate over to Calvinism shows that between the doc- 
trines of Luther and Calvin he favored Calvinism. But 
he himself did not make the choice, because he saw the 
salvation of German Protestantism in a tenacious adher- 
ence to his unionistic formulas. He refused to go beyond 
the expression of Paul, I Cor. 10:16, that the bread is 
"the communion of the Body of Christ." In Art. X of 
the Augsburg Confession, in the Variata form, he uses the 
preposition cum. This can have the signification "through 
the means of" ; when so interpreted it is Lutheran. But 
it may also mean simultaneously or in connection with; 
when so understood it is Calvinistic. The oral reception 
of the Body of Christ and its reception also by the un- 
worthy offer the test as to which signification is accepted. 
Melanchthon rejected the oral receiving of Christ's 
Body. 73 The fundamental trouble with Melanchthon was 
his failure to appreciate Luther's great thought of the 
mystery in the organic union between the divine and the 
human as well as the communication of the divine through 
the created. 

Melanchthonianism as an organized party 74 suffered a 
severe defeat in the drama that took place in Saxony, as 
we have described above. This defeat at that time was 
not merely the result of the severe polemics of the strict 
Lutherans, but it had its source in the lack of character 
and positiveness of the Melanchthonian position. 75 Me- 
lanchthon's doctrine of the Lord's Supper lacked in Bib- 
lical foundation and in dogmatic completeness. It could 
appeal to those only with an indifferent attitude of mind. 
And the Christology of the Melanchthonians falls short 
in that it refuses to draw logical consequences from ad- 
mitted premises. Melanchthonianism, in the points un- 
der consideration, was too neutral; it lacked in positive- 
ness. Kawerau calls attention to the fact that after the 
introduction of the Formula of Concord wherever Me- 



73 Corp. Ref. IX, 1046. 
7A Cf. R. E. XV, 323, IS- 

75 Kawerau remarks that Philippism remained etwas Halbes. 
R. E. XV, 329, 5i. 



43 

lanchthonianism still persisted there came forth no schol- 
arship that could be compared with the literary produc- 
tions of Concordia Lutheranism. 76 

But what was the influence of Melanchthonianism upon 
further developments in Germany ? While it is true that 
for the time being Melanchthonianism was defeated 
through the very general adoption of the Formula of 
Concord and the publication of the Book of Concord — de- 
feated to such an extent that for a century the name of 
the praeceptor Germaniae could hardly be mentioned 
without arousing indignation, 77 yet it was by no means 
dead. Germany, consisting of many different independ- 
ent dominions and principalities, secured to Melanchthon- 
ianism safe places of refuge. 78 Where subscription to the 
Formula of Concord was refused Melanchthonianism as 
a rule found a field for its influence. 

An important instrument through which Melanchthon- 
ianism kept exercising an influence with practical results 
was the Augsburg Confession in the Variata form. It 
served as an instrument for the introduction of a milder 
or even a complete Calvinism in many territories. It 
was before the Thirty Years' War when, according to the 
Augsburg Religious Peace Treaty of 1555, the adherents 
to the Augsburg Confession alone were entitled to tolera- 
tion. By accepting the Variata and interpreting Art. X 
on the Lord's Supper in a Bucerian or fully Calvinistic 
sense Calvinism was introduced. Thus as mentioned 
above, Frederick III of the Palatinate, when the Lutheran 
princes threatened to proceed against him for having 
made his country Calvinistic, answered that he was stand- 
ing upon the Augustana Variata. But his real creed was 
contained in the Heidelberg Catechism. At Nassau, Bre- 

76 R. E. XV, 329, 55. 

77 Dr. Polykarp Leyser at a disputation in Wittenberg tore the 
picture of Melanchthon from the wall and threw it to the ground. 

78 Kattenbusch, in R. E. XVI, 163, 8. 



44 

men, Anhalt and in Brandenburg the Variata was used 
for the same purpose. 79 

It is an interesting question and for the consideration 
of our general subject a very practical one whether Me- 
lanchthonianism has actually modified Calvinism in Ger- 
many or not. Is the Calvinism of Germany, or the "Re- 
formed" Church of Germany, different from the same 
form of Protestantism , or from the "high Calvinism" in 
other countries? This is a question that cannot be an- 
swered with a simple yes or no. It must be admitted that 
in the parts of Germany that embraced Calvinism there 
has been an almost general tendency to exclude or to 
evade Calvin's doctrine of Predestination. so When it 
came to the Lord's Supper Calvin's doctrine prevailed 
everywhere. But after all the question is whether or not 
even this view has been modified by Melanchthonian 
forms of expression. This has certainly been the case in 
Anhalt (see above sub. 6. b) if we are to be guided by the 
Repetitio Anhaltina of 1581. 81 - Neither can it be denied 
that the Confession of Sigismund of 1614 (see sub. 6, e) 
bears a somewhat Melanchthonian character. To quote 
Schaff : "In regard to the controverted articles, Sigis- 
mund rejects the Lutheran doctrine of the ubiquity of 
Christ's Body and exorcism in Baptism as a superstitious 
ceremony, and the use of the wafer instead of the break- 
ing of bread in the communion. He adopts the Reform- 
ed doctrine of the Sacraments, and of the eternal and un- 
conditioned election of grace, yet with the declaration that 
God sincerely wished the salvation of all men and was not 
the author of sin and damnation." 82 The terms employed 
on the Lord's Supper are indeed Bucero-Melanchthonian. 

79 Moeller-Kawerau III, 305!. Kurtz, English ed. §§144, 2; 154, 1 
(Moeller-Kawerau III, 307f., jo8f.) §154. 3- (Moeller-Kawerau III, 
312ft.) Cf. Neve, Altered and Unaltered Augsburg Confession, 
Luth. Lit. Bd., Burlington, Iowa) p. 361. 

80 Cf. Richards. Heidelberg Catechism, p. ioiff. 

81 It is not a strictly Reformed Confession, but dating from the 
Melanchthonian transition period it represents more "a milder 
type of Lutheranism in opposition to the Flacian party." (Schaff, 
Creeds I, 564). 

82 Creeds I, 556. 



45 

We read of a "sacramental connection" of the earthly and 
heavenly elements, of an "undivided distribution" of 
bread and the Body of Christ. But the emphasis is upon 
the cum in the sense of simultaneous, as can be seen from 
the statement that the bread is received with the mouth, 
but the Body of Christ through faith. It is the Calvin- 
istic "side by side" expressions as against the Lutheran 
conception of an organic union. 83 However, it must be 
admitted that there appears in these Confessions, as well 
as the Confessions of Brandenburg, that grew out of the 
colloquies at Leipzig (1631) and at Thorn (1645), some- 
thing of the Melanchthonian indefiniteness and elasticity 
of expression. When we make this admission it should, 
however, be remembered that at Bremen, Lippe and on 
the Rhine the Reformed Church was of a strictly Calvin- 
istic type. 

But before the conclusion of our investigation, we will 
have to consider for a moment the chief Confession of 
the Reformed Church in Germany, which is the Heidel- 
berg Catechism. Very few of the Reformed in the age 
of the union movements knew or cared to know the Bran- 
denburg Confessions, but the Heidelberg Catechism was 
learned by every child. What is the confessional char- 
acter of this catechism? Dr. G. W. Richards, professor 
in the Reformed Seminary at Lancaster, Pa., in his book 
on the Heidelberg Catechism, mentions three points in 
which the teaching of the Heidelberg Catechism differs 
from Lutheranism : with regard to the Sacraments, to the 
person of Christ, and to the Church. In Baptism the for- 
giveness of sins is in no wise received through the water 
in connection with the Word, for the application of water 
is only a symbol through which a certain assurance of for-r 
giveness is granted. See the answer to question 73 : "I 
am washed with the Blood and Spirit from the pollution 
of my soul, that is from all my sins, as certainly as I am 
washed outwardly with water, whereby the filthiness of 

83 Stahl, n6ff. 



m 



the Body is taken away." Dr. Richard interprets : "The 
washing with the Blood and Spirit is not accomplished 
through the water ; it is merely symbolized by the water." 
Regarding the Supper it is answered to question 75 "that 
with His crucified Body and shed Blood, He Himself feeds 
and nourishes my soul to everlasting life, as certainly as 
I receive from the hand of the minister and taste with my 
mouth, the bread and the cup of the Lord." Again Dr. 
Richards interprets: "This nourishment, however, is 
not given in, with and under the bread and wine. For 
the bread and cup of the Lord are no more than 'certain 
tokens of the Body and Blood of Christ — not vehicles and 
instruments/ The most that one could claim is, that the 
spiritual food is imparted by the mediation of the Holy 
Spirit at the same time that the bread and wine are re- 
ceived. Nor does any one, save the believer, receive the 
Body and Blood of Christ; the unbeliever receives only 
bread and wine. This fact is not stated in so many 
words, but it is a legitimate inference from the whole 
tenor of the Catechism." 84 In questions 46 and 47 the 
Lutheran doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ's Body is 
clearly excluded. Under question 44 we have Calvin's 
doctrine of Christ's descent to hell. That on the doctrine 
of the Church the Heidelberg Catechism is in agreement 
with Zwingli and Calvin can be seen in its language on 
the office of the keys and on church discipline (cf. ques- 
tions 83-85). In addition to this we mention the Puri- 
tanic strictness of the Catechism in its rejection of images 
in the Church (q. 98). Cautiousness of expression and 
an obvious unwillingness to commit itself are character- 
istic of the Heidelberg Catechism. This is to be explain- 
ed by the fact that its task was the reconciliation of an 
entirely Lutheran population to Calvin's type of Protest- 
antism. But the Catechism is truly Reformed. 

* 84 Richards, p. 90. 



47 

And yet there is a characteristic difference between the 
Heidelberg and Calvin's own Catechism. 85 His leading 
principle, the glorification of God in the congregation of 
the elect, appears constantly. "The Catechism of Calvin 
seeks to teach men how to glorify God and every part is 
controlled by that idea — God's glory and God's will. It 
is theological and legalistic in spirit." 86 The first ques- 
tion of Calvin's Catechism reads : "What is the chief end 
of human life?" The first question of the Heidelberg 
Catechism reads : "What is your sole comfort in life and 
death?" Calvin is speculative, the Heidelberg is prac- 
tical. The writer agrees with Dr. Richards when he re- 
marks : "One may define it as Calvinism modified by the 
German genius." 87 This must have been the reason that 
the Catechism refrains from committing itself to Calvin's 
doctrine of predestination. 

Our conclusion, then, is that there is a difference be- 
tween "high Calvinism" and the Calvinism of the German 
Reformed. The Calvinism which appears in connection 
with the "union movements between Lutherans and Re- 
formed," among the Germans, is a Calvinism translated 
into the German. It is a difference, however, not in es- 
sence, but only in degree. It should not be overlooked 
that the Swiss Confessions have also had their influence 
upon the German Reformed. Neither should it be over- 
looked that the influences from England through much 

85 Calvin evidently was not pleased with the publication of the 
Heidelberg Catechism. He never mentions it. "Er schwieg sich 
aus." He had hoped that his Catechism would become the only 
Catechism for the Churches under his influence. But the Synod 
of Dort, in which were representatives of almost all the Reformed 
Churches, recognized the Heidelberg as a book of symbolic value. 
In Holland (since 1586) preachers and teachers were obligated to 
its acceptance; in Germany and to the East, wherever Calvinism 
found a hold, it came into use everywhere; in East-Friesland, on 
the lower Rhine, at Juelich, Kleve and Berg, in Nassau-Siegen, 
Witgenstein, Solms and Wied, Bremen, Lippe, Anhalt, Hesse- 
Cassel, Brandenburg, Prussia and Hungary. The Reformed 
Churches in France, England, Scotland kept their own Cate- 
chisms. Cf. the article of M. Lauterburg in R. E. X, p. 172. 

86 Richards, p. 99. 

87 See Richards, ut supra, pp. 96, cf. 103. 



48 

literature and through personal touch — we only need to 
think of the union endeavors of Duraeus 85 — have been 
many. 

We have come to the end of the second chapter. 
We have studied the Lutherans and the Reformed as they 
stood opposed to each other when the need of a union was 
felt. We are now ready for a critical review of the union 
movements through the seventeenth and the eighteenth 
centuries, which shall be our task in the next two chap- 
ters. 

88 Cf. Kurtz, Church History, §154, 4. 



CHAPTER III. 

THE VARIOUS UNION MOVEMENTS OF THE SEVEN- 
TEENTH CENTURY. 

Literature: Some of the literature used in this chap- 
ter was given with full title and time of publication in 
preceding chapters. It is enumerated at the beginning 
or at the close of the separate sections and referred to 
in the text of the discussions. These works are especi- 
ally Kurtz, Moeller-Kawerau III, Stahl, Wangemann,, 
Hering, Schaff. The following are here added: Aw- 
gusti, Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, etc. (collection 
of Reformed confessions cf. Schaff, Creeds I, 355), 1827, 
pp. 386ff., 398ff. Niemeyer, Collectio Confessionum in 
Ecclesiis Reformatis (1840), pp. 553ff., 669ff. Boeckel, 
Die Bekenntnisschriften der Reformierten Kirche (1847), 
pp. 669ff. Nitzsch, Urkundenbuch der Union (1853), 
pp. 73ff., pp. 118ff. Schmid, Geschichte der synkretis- 
tischen Streitigkeiten (1846). Zoeckler, Augsburgische 
Konfession. Neve, Paul Gerhardt in Lutheran Quar- 
terly (1907). Zezschwitz, Die kirchlichen Normen 
der Abendmahlsgemeinschaft (1870). Rietschel, Die 
Gewaehrung der Abendmahlsgemeinschaft (1869). The 
following articles of Hauck's Protestantische Realency- 
klopaedie (R. E.) have been used: "Konsensus von 
Sendomir" by Erbkam (XVIII, 215ff.) ; on Cassel Col- 
loquy by Mirbt (III, 744ff.) ; "David Paraeus" by Ney 
(XIV, 686) ; "Leipzig Colloquium" by Hauck (XI, 
363ff.) ; "Naumburger Fuerstentag" by Kawerau (XIII, 
661ff.); "Sigismund" by Kawerau (XVIII, 331ff.) ; 
"Synkretismus" by Tschackert (XIX, 243, cf. Meusel and 
Lutheran Encyclopedia on Syncretism) ; "Duraeus" 

49 



60 

(John Dury) by Tschackert (V, 92ff.; cf. New Schaff- 
Herzog IV, 37ff.) 

In the preceding chapter we considered developments 
in the second half of the sixteenth century and showed 
how the division between the two churches of Protestant- 
ism became permanent. We have seen how the Church 
of Calvin, in seemingly Melanchthonian forms, yet de- 
cidedly Calvinistic on the means of grace, gained ground 
in Germany so that the two churches stood opposed to 
each other, weakening the cause of Protestantism in se- 
vere controversy at a time when over against the on- 
slaught of Romanism in the Thirty Years' War confes- 
sional harmony was very much needed. A union was 
the crying need of the age, and to satisfy this need of a 
union between Lutherans and Reformed one "Irenicum" 
after the other was published, colloquies were held, 
churchmen and princes were active. These union move- 
ments and endeavors, interspersed with confessional 
conflicts as their unavoidable counterpart, characterize 
the seventeenth century or, more correctly, the closing 
part of the sixteenth and the larger part of the seven- 
teenth. In the present chapter we shall describe these 
various union movements, and in a following chapter on 
" George Calixtus and His Opponents" we shall discuss 
the conflicting principles between the men of union and 
the men of the confessions. 

It may be said in general that the greater willingness 
and readiness for a union was always on the part of the 
Reformed; the Lutherans never took the initiative, and 
when they were approached they distrusted their oppo- 
nents, and their polemics was characterized by much se- 
verity. The historian has no difficulty in explaining this 
phenomenon. 

In the first place, the Lutherans and the Reformed 
respectively regarded their disagreements from a 
different point of view. Although never willing to 
yield their position on the person of Christ, the Lord's 
Supper and the means of grace in general, the Reformed 
were willing nevertheless to unite with the Lutherans or 



51 



at least to step into a relation of mutual recognition, to 
abstain from controversy and to unite in action. They 
were inclined to regard the differences as more or less 
theological. Zwingli in 1529 offered Luther the hand of 
fellowship notwithstanding their disagreement. As 
early as 1525 he advised to treat the disagreement as a 
synkretismon. 1 The views of George Calixtus, particu- 
larly his distinction between fundamentals and non-fun- 
damentals and his limiting the fundamentals to what is 
necessary to be believed for salvation, appealed to many 
in the Reformed Church. The Lutherans refused to so 
distinguish between religion and theology when the ques- 
tion of union and confessional recognition was under dis- 
cussion. What Calixtus regarded as merely theological 
and therefore non-fundamental, this the Lutherans con- 
sidered as of highly religious significance because it de- 
termined the real content of what Calixtus called the 
fundamentals. In the view of the Lutherans the species 
reveals the essence of the genus. So they looked upon 
the theological differences as differences that affected re- 
ligion itself. The suggestion to desist from controversy 
and to recognize each other notwithstanding the exist- 
ing differences they rejected as syncretism and infidelity 
to truth. 

In the second place, the Lutherans felt that their ter- 
ritory had been invaded. The Palatinate was lost. 
From here and supported by the Philippists, a continuous 
propaganda for Calvinism was kept up. Underhand 
methods were used, as for instance in Saxony, to crowd 
out Lutheranism. Hesse became another center of prop- 
aganda. Then followed the conversion of Elector Sigis- 
mund of Brandenburg, also through influences from the 
Palatinate and from Hesse. Historic Lutheranism had 
to fight for its life. Under the circumstances it was cer- 
tainly natural that the Lutherans were irritated. At the 
close of the next chapter we shall have occasion to treat 
more in detail of the psychology in the controversial ac- 
tivity of the Lutherans. 

i Zwinglii Opp., ed. Schuler, VII, 390. 



52 

There was a third reason why the Lutherans were dis- 
inclined to participate in the conferences. These were 
as a rule called by princes favoring the Reformed cause. 
It was particularly in court circles where Lutheranism 
with its doctrines of the Real Presence and ubiquity was 
looked upon as a kind of barbarism as compared with the 
spiritual views of Calvinism and the humanism of the 
Melanchthonian school. The Lutherans could always 
trust the force of the principles of the Augsburg Con- 
fession, where these had opportunity to assert them- 
selves; but in too many cases that freedom was absent. 
It was a foregone conclusion that Lutheranism was to be 
crowded out. It was the State Church condition that put 
Lutheranism at a disavantage in many cases. When a 
prince changed his religion, he had the legal right to de- 
mand of his subjects that they follow him; if they re- 
fused he could force them to emigrate. The first meas- 
ure was to drive the protesting ministers out of the 
country, as it was in the Palatinate when Frederick III 
left the Lutheran Church. When a prince did not regard 
it wise to force his religion upon his country he labored 
for union and arranged for conferences in which the 
Lutheran side was at a disadvantage, as it was in Hesse 
and in Brandenburg. 

In the account which is to be given in this chapter not 
all union movements were of like importance. Some of 
"me conferences were indeed of little significance (for 
instance the one at Moempelgard) ; others were super- 
ficial (the Sendomir Consensus, the Thorn and Cassel 
colloquies) ; others were under the control of extreme 
partizanship (like the Berlin Conference). The most 
helpful of all conferences, because of its thoroughness 
and frankness in dealing with the differences, was the 
Leipzig Colloquy. 

I. TWO UNION MOVEMENTS AT THE CLOSE OF THE SIX- 
TEENTH CENTURY. 

I. The caption of our chapter which limits our ac- 



53 

count to the union movements in the seventeenth century 
permits of only a brief review of two conventions that 
took place in the last quarter of the preceding century. 
One of these was the general synod that was held in 
Sendomir, Poland, in 1570, and the other was the col- 
loquy at Moempelgard, held in 1586. 2 

(a). At Sendomir (1570) it was the aim of uniting 
the Bohemian Brethren (Moravians), the Lutherans and 
the adherents of the Swiss Reformation. A union of all 
Protestants in old Poland was urged as a political neces- 
sity over against the Roman influence by the Protestant 
faction of the Polish nobility which was almost exclu- 
sively Reformed. 3 The Reformed representatives were 
in the majority, in fact they regarded the convention as 
a Reformed synod and, therefore, simply presented the 
second Helvetic Confession to be adopted as the Polish 
National Confession. The Bohemian Brethren were 
willing to agree, provided their own Confession was not 
rejected. The Lutherans suggested that a new Confes- 
sion be drafted. This was finally done, and so the Con- 
sensus Sendomir iensis came into existence.* On the 
Lord's Supper considerable concessions were made to the 
Lutherans in that it was stated that the elements were 
not empty signs, but that they communicate to the be- 
lievers what they signify, namely the Body and Blood of 
the Lord. The Consensus was Melanchthonian in char- 
acter. 5 The article on the Lord's Supper in Melanch- 
thon's Repetitio Confessionis Augustanae* was taken over 
in its entirety with the remark that it was in accord with 
the Second Helvetic Confession. 7 The absence of Luth- 
er's terminology and definitions can be seen throughout 
in the portions quoted from the Repetitio. 8 The facul- 

2 The old Moempelgard is the present Montbeliard in France. 
(Dep't Daubs). From 1395 to 1793 it was ruled by Wurtemberg. 

3 Erbkam in R. E. XVIII, 23. 

4 See the text in Niemeyer, Collectio Confessionum, etc. 553ff. 
Also in Nitzsch, Urkundenbuch der Union, pp. 73ff. 

5 Shaff, Creeds I, 587. 

6 Corp. Ref. XXVIII, 4i5ff. 

7 Cf. R. E. XVIII, 217, 20. 

8 Cf. Nitzsch, Urkundenbuch, p. 75ff. 



64 

ties of several Lutheran universities disapproved of the 
agreement. 9 It soon became evident that a lasting con- 
fessional peace had not been established. 30 

(b). The Moempelgard Colloquy of 1586 was called 
by Count Frederick of Wurtemberg, chiefly for the pur- 
pose of settling the question whether the Huguenot refu- 
gees from France (Reformed) could be admitted to the 
Lord's Supper at the Lutheran altars in Moempelgard 
without virtually and in fact making themselves mem- 
bers of the Lutheran Church. 11 In the history of the 
altar fellowship question this Moempelgard Colloquy is 
of special interest. The Reformed theologians, here 
present, Beza, Zanchius, Ursinus, establishing themselves 
upon their principle "Sacramenta sunt notae profes- 
sionis," took the position that one who was not of their 
own Church could not be admitted with the Reformed to 
the Lord's Supper, because "it would make too common 
the sacramental fellowship-badge, if the Reformed were 
to commune with those not under their banner, but of 
the counterpart" ("das sakramentliche Losungszichen 
gemein machen mit denen, die nicht des Fahnens sind, 
sondern zum Gegenpart gehoeren.") 12 The Lutheran 
Count Frederick of Wurtemberg declared at the close of 
the colloquy that the Reformed should be admitted to the 
Lutheran altar without losing their membership in the 
Reformed Church. But this proved to be a too hasty 
decision. The Lutheran theologians of Wurtemberg 
criticized it, and so the Count changed the rule declaring 
"that Christ had instituted the Supper also for the pur- 
pose that by it as a mark (Feld-und Merkzeichen) it may 
be known to what faith the individual is inclining. For 
he who communes with a church of whatever name 



9 Salig, Historie der Augsb. Conf. II, 785. 

10 As special literature we refer to Rudelbach, Reformation, 
Luthertum und Union, pp. 397-407; R- E. XVIII, 215-19; Schaff, 
Creeds I, 586ft ; Wangemann, Sieben Buecher Preussischer Kirch- 
engeschichte I, 376-80; Kurtz, Church Historj', Engl. Ed., 1888, §139, 
18; Moeller-Kawerau, Kirchengeschichte III, 365. 

11 Wangemann, Una Sancta I, 1, 149^. 

12 Wangemann, p. 152. 



55 



therewith indicates that he holds the doctrine of that 
church." 13 

Count Frederick used the occasion for making the con- 
ference a colloquy on the doctrinal differences between 
the followers of Luther and Calvin. Thus the Lutherans 
Andreae and Luk. Osiander met the Reformed theo- 
logians Beza, Musculus, Huebner and Alberius for a dis- 
cussion of the following five articles : The Lord's Supper, 
The Person of Christ, Paintings in the Churches, Baptism 
and Predestination. An agreement was reached only 
with regard to the paintings. Beza defended Calvin's 
doctrine of predestination in its strictest form, and he 
rejected decisively the Lutheran teaching of the ubiquity. 
At the close of the conference Count Frederick asked the 
participants as much as possible to refrain from contro- 
versy in their writings. He suggested that each give 
the other the hand of Christian fellowship. Beza and 
his associates were willing, but Andreae, while ready to 
extend his hand as a sign of personal respect and friendly 
feeling, declared that he could not give his hand as a 
token of fellowship in the faith. Upon this Beza also 
refused the hand of personal friendship, and they parted 
in a spirit of irritation. 14 

II. THE "PFAELZER IRENICUM." 

The "Pfaelzer Irenicum" of 1606 is here mentioned 
for the sake of completeness. It was an anonymous ap- 
peal for confessional peace from the quarters of the Re- 
formed in the Palatinate. It was promptly rejected by 
Polycarp Leyser at Wittenberg in a writing of the fol- 
lowing year. He reminds the opponents in the Pala- 
tinate of the oppression of the Lutherans in their 
country, the expulsion of the Lutheran ministers, of the 
hardship and the tears resulting from these measures. 

13 Zezschwitz, Die kirchlichen Normem der Abendmahlsgemein- 
schaft (1870), p. 39. Cf. Rietschel, Die Gewaehrung der Abend- 
mahlsgemeinschaft; Wangemann I, 1. 52I 

14 Hering Unionsversuche I, 2741. 



56 

He assures them that the Lutherans had also been pray- 
ing for at least a political peace; but a religious peace, 
a brotherly union without agreement in the truth, would 
be against the Scriptures. Galatians 2:5, 11; 2 John 2; 
2 Thes. 2 :10 ; 2 Timothy 2 :25 were quoted. By entering 
into a peace of the kind as desired by the publishers of 
the "Irenicum" the Lutherans would practically approve 
of the errors which, for conscience's sake, they had to 
reject. These errors were affecting the doctrines of the 
universality of grace, the means of grace and the person 
of Christ. Leyser further protests against the distinc- 
tion made between faith or the foundation for faith and 
the theological opinion with regard to faith. The dif- 
ferences between Lutherans and Reformed he said, are 
more than merely theological opinions ; they are insepar- 
ably interwoven with faith itself. The errors of the op- 
ponents affect the foundation of faith. For this reason 
the Lutherans could not listen to the appeal to desist 
from polemics, although conscious of the duty that con- 
troversy should be conducted without bitterness and 
without personalities. The form and spirit of the reply 
showed the determination not to make peace with the 
Reformed Church. 15 

III. THE ADVANCE OF PARAEUS. 

Another "Irenicum" was published by David Paraeus, 
professor at the Heidelberg university in 1614. He pro- 
posed that a union between the two churches be worked 
out by a general synod of all Protestants in Germany, 
England and the Scandinavian countries, suggesting that 
even before such a union could be realized the adherents 
of both churches might continue to hold their peculair 
views and differing opinions which ought not to hinder 
them from regarding each other as brethren and treat- 
ing each other according to Romans 14: Iff. Agreement, 
he said, already existed in all essentials except in one 

15 The title of the writing was : "De pace ecclesiae evange- 
licae," 1607. See extract in Hering I, 275-83. 



57 

point only, which did not affect the ground of salvation. 
In view of Rome's preparation for a religious war which 
threatened common Protestantism he plead that both 
sides should bury their differences. 16 But these sugges- 
tions of Paraeus were rejected by the Wittenberg theo- 
logians, especially in a writing of Leonard Hutter, and 
also by the University of Tuebingen. Paraeus was in spe- 
cial disfavor with the Lutherans, because in 1605, in pub- 
lishing a commentary on the prophet Hosea, he had dedi- 
cated his work to Landgrave Maurice of Hesse praising 
him for introducing Reformed services in Marburg. The 
Lutherans (Prof. Fr. Bellmann of Wittenberg) now de- 
clared that a synod was unnecessary, because the errors 
of the Reformed had been sufficiently examined, adding 
that it would also be impossible because Lutheran theo- 
logians would not meet in peaceful conference with the 
Calvinists. Paraeus replied in an eloquent dissertation 
in Latin, which was read at the fiftieth anniversary of 
the university at Heidelberg. 17 

IV. THE COLLOQUY AT LEIPZIG. 18 

This colloquy was occasioned by a political convention 
between Elector John George I, of Saxony, Elector 
George William, of Brandenburg, and the Landgrave 
William of Hesse. They had agreed on a political union 
of German Protestantism ("Leipziger Bund",) by which 
they could resist the emperor's edict of restitution with- 
out being compelled to unite with Gustavus Adolphus. 
The princes in conference at Leipzig were accompanied 

16 R. E. XIV, 689, 3ff. 

17 See the extract of this address in Hering I, 286-06. 

18 Literature : Colloquium Lipsicum (in Augusti, Corpus libr. 
symb. 1827, pp. 386ft.) Hauck in R. E. XI, 363f. Meusel IV, 23if. 
Lutheran Cyclopedia, p. 274. Schaff, Creeds I, 558ff. Hering, 
Unionsversuche I, 327-59. Wangemann, Una Sancta, I, Book 1, 
i7off. Rudelbach, Reformation, Luthertum und Union, pp. 407-14. 
Kurtz, §153, 8. 



58 

by their theologians. 19 The Reformed theologians of 
Brandenburg and Hesse, chief speaker among them was 
Dr. Bergius, asked the Lutherans (Dr. Hoe von Hoe- 
negg, together with Dr. Pol. Leyser and Prof. Dr. 
Hoepfner, of Leipzig) to enter with them into a pri- 
vate colloquy for the purpose of promoting peace 
between the two churches of Protestantism. Under the 
pressure of overhanging tribulation the unexpected took 
place: Hoenegg, the uncompromising foe of Calvinism, 
and the two other men accepted the invitation with the 
understanding that it was to be a private conference, with 
the object of examining to what extent both sides were 
in agreement with the Augsburg Confession. The con- 
ference was held in the lodging place of Hoe von Hoenegg 
and lasted from the 3rd to the 23rd of March. The Re- 
formed theologians declared that they accepted the Augs- 
burg Confession of 1530, emphasizing that the Confes- 
sion in this form was recognized and subscribed in Bran- 
denburg and Hesse. But they stated that they also ac- 
cepted the Variata of 1540 and its successors. They ap- 
pealed to the declaration made at the "Day of Princes" 
at Naumburg in 1561 that in the Variata editions "the 
Confession was merely repeated in a somewhat more 
stately and elaborate manner, explained and enlarged on 
the basis of the Holy Scriptures." Here, of course, was 
the real crux. It had always been held by the Reformed 
that in adopting both editions it was permissible to in- 
terpret Article X on the Lord's Supper in the edition of 
1530 (the so-called Invariata) by the more elastic and in- 
definite words of the Variata of 1540 and thus defend 
Calvin's conception of a spiritual presence of Christ in 
the Eucharist. 20 The difference of position as to the 
texts was not discussed. But the Lutherans stated that 

19 The Brandenburg elector by his court preacher Dr. John 
Bergius, the Landgrave of Hesse by Dr. Crocius and his court- 
preacher Neuberger, the Saxon elector who was residing at Dres- 
den by his courtpreacher Dr. Hoe von Hoenegg. 

20 Cf. Kawerau in R. E. XIII, 665. Rudelbach p. 409. Richard, 
Confessional History, p. 206. Neve, Altered and Unaltered 
Augsb'g Conf. (Luth. Lit. Board, Burlington, la.), pp. 32, 36ff. 
Also Lutheran Symbolics, pp. 9iff., and 207ff. 



59 



they identified themselves with the declaration in the in- 
troduction of the Formula of Concord (§4). In the doc- 
trine of the Lord's Supper, the Reformed did their ut- 
most to approach the Lutherans as far as their consci- 
ence would permit. Both sides agreed that in the sacra- 
mental eating or receiving (sakramentliche Niessung) 
the earthly elements on the one hand and the Body and 
Blood of Christ on the other are at the same time (zu- 
gleich) and together (miteinander) received (genossen). 2: 
Never has there been a closer approach between repre- 
sentatives of the two churches as far as terms are con- 
cerned. But even here the meaning that was put into 
the terms cannot have been the same on both sides, be- 
cause there was division as soon as it came to the omni- 
presence of Christ's human nature, to the oral receiving 
of Christ's Body and to the question whether worthy and 
unworthy alike receive the Body. In order to remove the 
offense which the Reformed usually take at the sugges- 
tion of an oral receiving 22 the Lutheran theologians at 
Leipzig stated with much care that while the blessed 
bread and the Body of the Lord were received with one 
and the same organ (uno et eodem organo oris) yet the 
mode of receiving Christ's Body was different from the 
mode of receiving the bread. The oral receiving of the 
bread, they said, is without means; but the Body and 
Blood of Christ are received not without means, but 
through and by virtue of the blessed elements, in a 
heavenly, supernatural way, in a manner that is known 
to God alone, with the exclusion of any natural manduca- 
tion. 23 In Article III on the Person of Christ a very 
large agreement was discovered, which was expressed in 

21 See Wangemann, p. 171. 

22 The phrase "oral manducation" should be avoided as a de- 
scription of the Lutheran conception, because the Lutheran con- 
fessions reject decidedly a Capernaitic eating and drinking. The 
Lutherans teach an oral receiving, but not oral manducation. 

23 Wangemann, ibidem. Hering I, 340. 



60 

twelve essential points. A disagreement appeared, how- 
ever, in denning the states of Christ. 24 

Regarding the rest of the Augsburg Confession, agree- 
ment was recorded on Articles I-II; V-IX; XI-XXVIII. 
The reader will ask: Why was the important Article 
IV on Justification not among the articles of agreement? 
Here the Saxon theologians felt that full harmony would 
depend upon the attitude on the doctrine of predestina- 
tion in regard to which, at that time, after the adjourn- 
ment of the Synod of Dort, there was so much discussion. 
The matter was taken up in connection with Article XIX 
on the Cause of Sin. It was found that there was essen- 
tial agreement on the doctrine of justification. The dis- 
agreement concerning predestination appeared in this 
that the Lutherans insisted upon an election for salva- 
tion "in view of faith" (intuitu fidei), which the Re- 
formed rejected. The Reformed confessed that only a 
limited number of men, known to God alone, had been 
elected from all eternity without respect to a foreseen 
faith or any inclination to accept grace. But they de- 
clared at the same time that they believed in God's seri- 
ous willingness to save all men, and they rejected a vol- 
untas signi. With regard to the non-elect the Reformed 
declared simply that condemnation was the divine judg- 
ment following man's sin and unbelief. 25 

It was agreed that the particulars of the colloquy 
should not be made public. For this reason only four 
copies of the protocol were made, three for the princes 
and one for the theological faculty at Leipzig. But soon 
all was known in England, France, Switzerland, Holland 
and Sweden, and detailed reports appeared in print. 26 

The significance of this Leipzig Colloquy should here 
be noted: (1) It was the surprise of the time that the 

24 Cf. Augusti, pp. 398-99. A thorough review of agreement 
and disagreement concerning the doctrine of the person of Christ 
is given in Hering I, 334-39. See also Rudelbach, pp. 4ioff. 

25 Cf. Hering I, 341L Schaff I, 559. Collection of Reformed 
Confessions by Niemeyer (pp. 653-68) and Boeckel (pp. 443-56) ; 
also in Nitzsch, Urkundenbuch der Union pp. 96-117. 

26 R. E. XI, 364, 47ff- 



61 



Lutheran theologians, such outspoken antagonists of Cal- 
vinism as Hoe von Hoenegg and Polycarp Leyser, had 
been willing to spend twenty days in a colloquy with the 
Reformed and that the discussions had been conducted in 
such a friendly spirit. (2) The Reformed theologians 
went to the limit in meeting the Lutherans, which can be 
seen especially on the subject of the Person of Christ. 
(3) The colloquy was conducted with entire honesty on 
both sides and with a thoroughness that contrasted fa- 
vorably with many other conferences of a like nature 
(the Sendomir Consensus of 1570 and the Cassel Collo- 
quy as instances). (4) "The proceedings were charac- 
terized by great theological ability" (Schaff). (5) As 
Rudelbach observes correctly, this Leipzig Colloquy is 
in the same class with the colloquy between Luther and 
Zwingli at Marburg and the discussions that preceded 
the Wittenberg Concord of 1637. The differences were 
not smoothed over, but the participants looked them into 
the face and tried to meet them. For this reason more 
progress was here made than at other occasions. 27 (6) 
The friends of a union, especially among the Reformed, 
felt very much encouraged. Among them was the 
Scotch theologian Duraeus (Dury) of whose life-long 
efforts at bringing about a union we shall treat later 
(sub. VIII). 

But notwithstanding all this, nothing practical and 
tangible resulted from the Leipzig Colloquy. The under- 
standing was from the beginning that it was to be a 
private conference. Princes and churches were not to 
be held responsible or to be embarrassed by the agree- 
ments that were reached. The Reformed with their ma- 
terial concessions could promise nothing for their asso- 
ciates; not for their associates among the German Re- 
formed, to say nothing of their fellow-believers in other 
countries. The failure to agree on the Lord's Supper, 
particularly, was evidence of a fundamental difference. 

27 Read the beautiful treatment of the problem of a true 
union by Rudelbach, Reformation, Luthertum und Union p. 344, 
especially p. 419. 



62 



Of this difference both sides had become conscious since 
the publication of the Formula of Concord and the later 
confessions of the Reformed Church in the various coun- 
tries. Furthermore, time enough had passed for gain- 
ing perspectives of the opposing views, which, by the 
activity of the theologians of the two churches, had now 
crystallized into dogmas and confirmed the break between 
the two churches. The time for a union by agreement 
on the differing dogmas was a thing of the past. 28 

V. THE CONVENTION AT THORN, 1645. 

Of little significance for the purposes of our discussion 
was the convention of Thorn in 1645, chiefly because too 
much was attempted. King Wladislav IV of Poland de- 
sired to unite not only Lutherans and Reformed, but with 
these also the Roman Catholics of his domain. This was 
impossible, because the Romanists simply wished to lead 
the Protestants back to the fold from which they had 
strayed. These were simply to see their errors and then 
to come back repenting. The Roman dignitary at the 
head of his group frankly admitted that this was their 
expectation. Thirty-six sessions were held, of which 
only five were public. These sessions were utterly fruit- 
less, because, according to an order that had been given 
by the king, a disputation on the differences was not per- 
mitted. The three parties were simply to state their 
differences once or twice; argumentation was to be ex- 
cluded. Neither profit nor progress could be secured in 
such a way. So the king had to dismiss the convention. 
Nothing had beeen accomplished. The Thorn conven- 
tion is an illustration of what can be expected of a union 

28 Soon the controversy broke out anew, even between the 
very participants of the colloquy. Cf. J. Berg's publication of 

1635 "Relation der Privat-Conferenz zu Leipzig, 1631," nebst 

einer Vorrede, darin auf dasjenige, was Herr Hoe von Hoenegg 
zu seiner Rettung fuergebracht, gebuehrlich geantwortet wird." 
To this Dr. Hoenegg replied in his "Unvermeidliche Rettung," 
etc. (1635). 



63 

movement when political interests are the all-overshad- 
owing motive and when truth is not honestly sought. 

Two features of this convention, however, are of par- 
ticular interest for a history of the union movements be- 
tween Lutherans and Reformed: (1) The Reformed 
theologians, headed by Dr. J. Bergius, court preacher of 
Frederick William I of Brandenburg, brought with them 
to this convention a statement of their doctrine which 
was afterwards published as the "Thorn Declaration*' 
(Declaratio Thorunensis), and, like Sigismund's Confes- 
sion and the protocol of the Leipzig colloquy, was ac- 
cepted as a symbolical book in Brandenburg. 29 (2) The 
other feature of interest at this Thorn convention was 
the appearance of Professor George Calixtus of the 
Helmstedt University as a counsel for the Reformed side. 
At this the Lutherans took much offense, and it was here 
where the so-called "syncretistic controversies" received 
much of their impetus. 30 But conditions had shaped 
themselves in such a way that at Thorn there was noth- 
ing left for Calixtus but to step into the Reformed group 
with which, however, he could not justly be accused of 
being in harmony. With the permission of the Bran- 
denburg elector, on whose territory the convention was 
to be held, Calixtus, the famous exponent of irenics, had 
come from far with the intention of joining the Luth- 
erans as their counsel. But the Lutheran delegates, un- 
der the lead of Calovius 31 and Huelsemann 32 refused to 
accept him, and Calovius, particularly, managed to ex- 
clude him from the Lutheran group. 33 They objected to 
him because of his literary activity in behalf of irenics 
which from now on went generally under the name syn- 
cretism. In order to become a recognized member of the 
convention, so that his journey would not altogether be 

29 Latin in Niemeyer (pp. 669-689) ; German in Boeckel (pp. 
865-884) ; cf. Nitzsch, Urkundenbuch, pp. n8ff. 

30 See Tschackert in R. E. XIX, 245ft. 

31 Later professor at Wittenberg. 

32 Later professor at Strasburg. 

33 R. E. XIX, 245, 1-29. 



64 

in vain, he made himself a party of the Reformed group. 34 
But in matters of confessional difference between Luth- 
erans and Reformed he sided with the Lutherans. 35 The 
theological position of George Calixtus, especially his 
type of irenics, will be discussed in detail in the next 
chapter. 36 

VI. THE COLLOQUY AT CASSEL. 

This conference which was held 1661, from July 1st to 
9th, was arranged by the Reformed Landgrave William 
IV of Hesse. It was his intention to bring the two uni- 
versities in his domain, Marburg (Reformed) and Rin- 
teln (Lutheran), together into one faith. 37 The Luth- 
eran representatives (Peter Musaeus and J. Hennich) 
were men of the Helmstedt school. The program for 
discussion covered the following four loci: the Lord's 
Supper, predestination, the person of Christ, and Bap- 
tism. On the Lord's Supper it was agreed that abso- 
lutely necessary for salvation is the spiritual eating of 
the Body of Christ, which is a work of true faith in the 
crucified Saviour whose merit is appropriated. 38 Here it 
may be of profit for the reader to quote the following 
paragraph (61) from Part II of the Formula of Con- 
cord : "There is, therefore, a twofold eating of the flesh 
of Christ, one 'spiritual,' of which Christ especially treats 
(John 6 :54) , which occurs in no other way than with the 
spirit and faith, in the preaching and consideration of 
the Gospel, as well as in the Lord's Supper, and by itself 
is useful and salutary, and necessary at all times for sal- 
vation to all Christians; without which spiritual partici- 

34 R. E. XIX, 746, 44-54. 

35 Rudelbach, p. 418. 

36 Literature on the Thorn convention: Tschackert in R. E. 
XIX, 746ff. Schaff, Creeds I, 56off. Wangemann, Una Sancta, I, 1. 
pp. 88ff. Rudelbach, Reformation, Luthertum und Union 4145. 
Hering, Unionsversuche, II, 1-88. W. Gass, George Calixt und 
der Synkretismus, pp. 34rr. Henke, George Calixtus und seine 
Zeit, II, 71-110. 

37 Tschackert in R. E. XIX, 294, 57. Also p. 250, 8. 

38 Cf. Mirbt in R. E. Ill, 745, iff. 



65 

pation also the sacramental or oral eating in the Supper 
is not only not salutary, but even injurious and a cause of 
condemnation." (After these words, in the following 
paragraphs, 63-65, a description of the oral or sacra- 
mental eating is given). When it came to the question 
of the Real Presence and the receiving of Christ's Body 
by believers and unbelievers alike, the Lutherans stood 
in the affirmative and the Reformed in the negative. 
But both parties agreed that the difference does not af- 
fect man's salvation, especially because it was claimed 
that in both churches the Sacrament was used after 
Christ's institution, nothing essential being added or 
omitted. 39 Regarding the breaking of bread the Luth- 
erans conceded to the Reformed that such practice was 
not objectionable, if it was introduced with the consent 
of the congregations. And the Reformed conceded to 
the Lutherans that the wafers also were to be regarded 
as true bread. 

On the doctrine of predestination they agreed that 
man, after his fall, has no power to do good, but that his 
salvation is entirely the work of divine grace. Pelagi- 
anism and Semi-pelagianism were rejected. The Re- 
formed emphasized that God was not willing to commu- 
nicate His grace to all men and denied that the con- 
demned were lost because God had foreseen their evil at- 
titude. But again it was admitted on both sides that 
knowledge of such mysteries is not demanded for man's 
salvation. 

Regarding the person of Christ both sides indicated 
their agreement with the Christological dogma of the an- 
cient church as expressed in the Chalcedonian Creed (or 
in the second part of the Athanasian Creed). 40 Thus 
they avoided a discussion of the questions that separated 
Luther from the Swiss theologians. 41 

On Baptism they agreed that infant Baptism is neces- 

39 Hering II, 133. 

40 See Schafr*, Creeds I, 30, 34-39. Neve, Symbolics pp. 67-69. 

41 Cf. Art. VIII of the Formula of Concord. Neve, Symbolics, 
PP. 130-34. 



66 

sary. The Lutherans admitted that the customary act 
of exorcism might be changed into a prayer against the 
power of the devil. On this point Lutherans of to-day 
have generally abandoned a practice which was abhorred 
by the Reformed. Exorcism as the preparatory part of 
Baptism was included by Luther in his form for Baptism 
of 1523. 42 The practice gave ceremonial expression to 
the strong emphasis of Lutheranism on man's natural 
depravity and of Baptism as the ordinary means of re- 
generation. Deeply religious Lutheran theologians, such 
as Arndt and Paul Gerhard would rather have suffered 
exile than yield on exorcism. As has been stated, the 
Lutheran Church of to-day has abandoned the old form 
although it has retained in its Baptismal formulas the 
essential element of the abrenunciatio. But a Lutheran 
of to-day can appreciate the unyielding attitude of the 
fathers at a time when the attacks upon Lutheranism 
were many. He is reminded of the words of Matth. 
Flacius: Nihil est adiapheron in casu confessionis et 
scandali. But the real point of conflict between the 
Lutherans and Reformed on the doctrine of Baptism is 
the question whether this sacrament is an actual means 
of grace in the sense that through this act forgiveness is 
worked in the believing and trusting sinner (as Luther's 
Catechism teaches) or whether Baptism is merely a peda- 
gogic symbol of the need of forgiveness and for assur- 
ance — through the symbolical significance, not through 
the act of Baptism — (which is the meaning of the answer 
to question 73 in the Heidelberg Catechism) . This more 
essential difference was seemingly ignored in the colloquy. 
This Cassel Colloquy, different from the Wittenberg 
Concord and the Leipzig Colloquy, avoided too much the 
real points of conflict and for that reason has drawn the 
charge of superficiality and syncretistic tendency. 43 It 
was, therefore, after this colloquy that the so-called "syn- 

42 See a copy of the whole form in Vilmar, Pastoraltheologie, 
pp. noff. 

43 Once more we call attention to the most pertinent words 
of Rudelbach on p. 419. 



67 

cretistic controversies" which had been fanned by the de- 
velopments at Thorn were very much revived. 44 

It was chiefly three matters at which the strict Luth- 
erans outside of Hesse (at the universities of Witten- 
berg, Jena, and Strasburg) took offense and on which 
the controversy centered: 

(1) It had been agreed at the colloquy that the con- 
troverted points should not be discussed in sermons ex- 
cept when an explanation was demanded by the text, and 
then the preacher was simply to state objectively the dif- 
ference without imputing doctrines to the opponents, 
which these disclaimed. Reformed historians and advo- 
cates of the union have left the impression that this ob- 
jectionable practice was found only on the side of the 
Lutherans in that day. But the Reformed did the same 
and had done so from the beginning, as can be seen from 
complaints in the Formula of Concord. Particularly 
when they aimed at refuting the ubiquity, the Lutherans 
were charged with believing things which, as a church, 
they certainly disclaimed. For instance, they were said 
to hold that Christ's Body was present in all the herbs, 
the leaves, in pears and apples, in beer glasses, in all the 
devils and in the lice. 45 The habit of discussing theo- 
logical problems in a very polemical way was character- 
istic of the seventeenth century. That the Lutherans 
did more of it than the Reformed is to be admitted. It 
resulted from their emphasis upon a sound theology. 
But it is also largely to be explained by the fact that un- 
der the protection of princes who had begun to set their 
heart against Lutheranism, the Reformed, in so many 
places, were conducting a propaganda aiming at the in- 
troduction of Calvanism. And it is to be explained by 
the other fact that the method chosen for bringing it 
about was, as a rule, the advocacy of the ecclesiastic for- 

44 We give the following references : Tschackert in R. E. XIX, 
p. 250, 23ft.; p. 251, 4Qff.; p. 252, 26ff.; p. 254, 44ff. Mirbt in R. E. 
Ill, 745, 45ft*. ; Hering II, 147-80. 

45 Wangemann I, 1., 36. Cf. the address of Dav. Paraeus in 
Hering I, 293. See also pp. 282f., 29if. 



68 

mulas of the Melanchthonian school, which were to cover 
the differences instead of stating them and honestly try- 
ing to solve the difficulty. There was something to be 
cleared up. The Lutheran of to-day certainly agrees 
that in many cases these matters should not have been 
taken before the congregations, but should have been 
discussed in conferences of theologians; or in places 
where special circumstances made it necessary that the 
congregation be educated, it should have been done in the 
fine art of Luther who could touch upon these things 
without leaving the strictly religious ground. However, 
fair as the proposition, agreed upon at Cassel, seemed to 
be, the Lutheran theologians of the above-named universi- 
ties were not wrong in their criticism of that agreement. 
It is one thing to admit that theological polemics should 
not be taken into the pulpit, but quite another for minis- 
ters of the Word to bind themselves in advance and as a 
principle not to speak the truth when it may be neces- 
sary. It was this that the Lutherans meant when they 
used to say that the testimony of the Holy Spirit must 
have free course and should not be interferred with.* 6 
Among the men refusing to obey a decree of such a kind 
was a religious genius like Paul Gerhardt. 47 

(2) Another matter that became an object of dis- 
cussion after the colloquy in Cassel was the question of 
the "Elenchus," or even "Nominalelenchus." By this 
was meant the practice of the seventeenth century of 
summarizing, in the church services, the erroneous ten- 
dencies and teachings of the day and condemning them 
(Elenchus), in some cases by naming the churches and 
responsible teachers (Nominalelenchus). This practice 
had been discredited at Cassel to the great regret of the 
overzealous Lutheran theologians. It was the age of 
George Calixtus and the Helmstedt school to which also 
the professors of the Rinteln university belonged, and 
it was not easy for the Lutheranism of the seventeenth 

46 Cf. Hering II, 145, 164. 

47 Wangemann I, 1., p. I47f. 



69 



century even in such a matter to adjust itself to a new 
age which was coming. 

Somewhat related to the arguments about the "Elen- 
chus" was another matter. At Cassel the Lutheran pro- 
fessors of the Rinteln university agreed with the Re- 
formed of the Marburg university that in the points 
where they were as yet not in harmony with each other 
they should tolerate and recognize each other as mem- 
bers of the true Church and as associates in the true 
faith of Jesus Christ. 48 For this the Lutherans at Wit- 
tenberg took the Rintelners to account 49 and a long con- 
troversy followed. 50 A school milder than Wittenberg 
which was under the lead of Abr. Calovius, had come to 
the front. It was the University of Jena with John 
Musaeus as prominent theologian. It was a school which 
in the field of theology admitted "open questions," prob- 
lems to be solved. 51 But this school also opposed a "tol- 
erance" of the kind agreed on at Cassel, saying that it 
would be equal to an admission that the points of dis- 
agreement are after all matters of indifference, which 
would be infidelity to truth when it had reference to such 
matters as separated the Lutheran from the Reformed 
Church. It was the Jena school which opposed the new 
creed, proposed by Abr. Calovius in 1655, the "Repeated 
Consensus of the truly Lutheran Faith," which Schaff 
characterizes as an "abortive symbol against syncret- 
ism." 52 The place for a more complete account of Jena 
and Musaeus as a modifying factor of the severe Luth- 
eranism of Wittenberg and Leipzig will be in the next 
chapter when we shall treat of George Calixtus and his 
opponents; here the milder tendency of this school has 
been touched upon merely for the purpose of suggesting 
confidence in its agreement with Wittenberg when it 
came to a judgment on the kind of tolerance that had been 

48 Mirbt, in R. E. Ill, 745, 22ff. 

49 Tschackert in R. E. XIX, 250, 4off. 

50 R. E. XIX, 243, 28. 

51 See Schmid, Geschichte der synkretistischen Streitigkeiten 
(Erlangen, 1846), 40off. 

52 Creeds I, Index XI, cf. pp. 349-53. 



70 

agreeed upon between Rinteln and Marburg. As was 
said in the introductory remarks to this chapter, the 
Lutheran Church cannot agree to a clean cut separation 
between religion and theology; in its view the latter af- 
fects the former and cannot be treated as a matter of in- 
difference or as a matter of no concern when it comes to 
the question of recognizing a religious organization as a 
"true" church. 53 

(3) Closely connected with what has just been dis- 
cussed, is the question of fundamental and non-funda- 
mental doctrines as it bears on the relation of the 
churches to each other. The reader must have noticed 
that in the deliberations between the faculties of Mar- 
burg and Rinteln it was always the question, "Is this or 
that doctrine fundamental for salvation?" that was to 
decide the legitimacy of a union. Here the influence of 
the Helmstedt school is obvious. There was a fallacy in 
that question, particularly in the way it was formulated, 
that went undetected or was ignored in the quarters 
where the union was advocated. The problem was much 
discussed in the controversies that followed the Cassel 
colloquy, 54 but for the moment we shall pass it by, be- 
cause it is to be dealt with quite thoroughly in connection 
with the theological position of George Calixtus. There 
will be occasion for a few remarks on the matter also in 
connection with the report on the colloquy which is now 
to be taken under review. 

VII. THE COLLOQUY AT BERLIN (1662) AND SOME PRE- 
CEEDING HISTORY. 

The outcome of the Cassel colloquy had its effect also 
upon Brandenburg, the future Prussia. 55 Here the rul- 

53 Cf. Schmid, ut supra, pp. 4i2fT. Wittenberg as well as Jena 
recognized the Reformed as a Church, but insisted that its Con- 
fessions erred in essential matters. 

54 R. E. XIX, 251, 2ff. 

55 R. E. XIX. 252, 24ff. Hering II, 137, I48ff, 1578. Wangemann 
Una Sancta II, 1., 137. 



71 

ing house of the Hohenzollern was Reformed while the 
people were Lutheran. 

Before beginning the account the reader is invited 
again to make himself familiar with chapter two, VI, e 
(p. 38ff.) on the conversion of Elector Sigismund to the 
Reformed Church. 56 The character of his policy has been 
described in VII of the second chapter. While there was 
no intention of expressing what has been termed "high 
Calvinism" and while the leaning of the so-called "Con- 
fession of Sigismund" to the well-known Melanchthonian 
indefiniteness and elasticity of expression is quite evident, 
yet, considering the fact that he for himself accepted the 
Heidelberg Catechism, Sigismund's position was clearly 
that of Calvinism. The marriage relations in his family 
and of his successors were altogether with the princesses 
of the Palatinate. As regards the seemingly mediating 
position of the Brandenburg Confessions, the conclusion 
can hardly be evaded that between Calvin and Luther 
there is no tertium quid. That was made clear in VII of 
chapter two. The middle ground that seems to be ex- 
pressed in the Confession of Sigismund was merely a 
political move gradually and unawares to lead the Luth- 
eran subjects over to the position of the Heidelberg Cate- 
chism. After having publicly announced his conversion 
(1614) Sigismund started with much energy on a cam- 
paign of a "reforming" Lutheranism. It was to be 
cleansed of the remnants of papacy. In the baptismal 
service the practice of exorcism was to be removed; in 
the celebration of the Supper the breaking of the bread 
was to displace the use of the wafers. Doctrinally the 
offense was with regard to the Lutheran conception of 
the person of Christ, particularly the teaching of the 
communicatio idiomatum and the ubiquity, and also with 
regard to the Supper, particularly the emphasis upon the 
Real Presence in the language of Luther, including the 
oral receiving by believers and unbelievers alike. There- 

56 For a closer study, see Lutheran Quarterly 1907, pp. 36sff. ; 
Kawerau on "Sigismund" in R. E. XVIII, 33iff. Neve, "Luther- 
anism in Germany under the Church Policy of the Hohenzollern." 



72 

fore, the Formula of Concord was to be eliminated as 
confessional obligation for ministers, and the Invariata 
form of the Augsburg Confession was to be replaced by 
the Variata. By a method of coercion which the writer 
has described in detail on the basis of a large literature 
in the discussion that was mentioned, 57 Sigismund hoped 
to break the Invariata and the Formula of Concord Luth- 
eranism and to open the way for establishing the Re- 
formed Church. It was a policy that had worked well in 
Nassau, Anhalt and Hesse-Cassel. 58 But Sigismund was 
disappointed. It was impossible for the Hohenzollern 
to force the Lutherans of Brandenburg into the Re- 
formed Church. The resistance showed itself with such 
a determination that the plan had to be abandoned en- 
tirely. 

As a consequence of this failure, the Reformed Church 
of Brandenburg remained limited to the church of the 
Dom in Berlin and to a few small congregations at the 
places where the elector's castles were located. His wife 
and daughters, one of whom became the wife of Gustavus 
Adolphus, remained faithful to the Lutheran Church. A 
time of great estrangement between the elector and his 
people followed, which lasted also through the reign of 
his successor. At the beginning of the Thirty Years' 
War, the people of Berlin, as an expression of their feel- 
ing over what they had been compelled to endure under 
Sigismund, refused to lend the least support to Frederick 
V of the Palatinate in his campaign against the forces of 
Romanism. After his defeat in the battle at Prague 
(1620) they even refused him, the relative of their own 
elector, an asylum, so that he was compelled to flee im- 
mediately for Denmark. 

Then came Frederick William I, commonly called the 

57 "Lutheranism in Germany under the Church Policy of the 
Hohenzollern," a paper which was read (December 1918) before 
the American Society of Church History in New York and will 
appear in print. 

58 Moeller-Kawerau III, 305!, 307, 3o8ff. Kurtz, Engl. Ed., 
§§144, 3; 154, 1. German ed., 14th, §152, 3, 5. R. E. XVIII, 334, 4. 
Cf. VI in chapter two of these discussions. 



73 



"Great Elector" (1640-88). He changed the program 
from a conversion of the Lutherans to a union of the two 
churches, which from now on became the traditional 
policy of the Hohenzollern. It was at the time when the 
Thirty Years* War was drawing to its close and prepara- 
tions for peace were being considered that again the con- 
fessional difference between Lutherans and Reformed 
was felt. In that day the confessional factor always af- 
fected the political situation. The Lutherans, under the 
lead of electoral Saxony, insisted that the Reformed had 
never been adherents of the Augsburg Confession and, 
therefore, should not be counted as such in the future. 

To understand the meaning of this demand, it is to be 
kept in mind that at the Augsburg Religious Peace 
Treaty of 1555 religious toleration and recognition for 
the Protestants was limited to the adherents of the Augs- 
burg Confession. More and more the Jesuits began to 
stir for the great religious war by spreading the news 
that the Lutherans had departed from the original Augs- 
burg Confession (1) because for a time they had used the 
Variata, and (2) when they did go back to a document 
which they called the "Invariata" they accepted a text 
which cannot be proved to be identical in all respects with 
the original copies delivered to Charles V at Augsburg, 
the only copy on the basis of which they had been recog- 
nized in 1555. Such was the significance of the proper 
text in that day. The individual and the Church outside 
of that basis had no right to exist and was threatened 
with the execution of the empire. The Lutherans de- 
fended themselves vigorously and not altogether unsuc- 
cessfully by pointing to the Editio Princeps as the oldest 
edition in existence and dating of 1530. 59 It is true that 
this was not conclusive, because the original documents 

59 _ The chief writing on the part of the Lutherans" was the 
publication of the Leipzig theologians of 1628 which has been 
printed in numerous editions : "Notwendige Verteidigung des 
Heil. Roemischen Reischs Chur-Fuersten und Staende Aug- 
apfels nemlich der wahren, reinen ungeaenderten Augsburgischen 
Konfession und des auf dieselbe gerichteten Religionsfrieds," etc 
On the whole controversy see Zoeckler, Augsb. Confession, 68ff. 



74 

were not known to exist; but neither were the Roman- 
ists able to prove that the Lutherans were wrong. But 
with the Reformed it was different, because they ac- 
cepted the Variata of 1540 or its successors, which varied 
doctrinally from the Editio Princeps. 60 

Brandenburg's elector was quick to see that with the 
prevailing of Saxony's plans the political existence of 
Brandenburg, the Palatinate and Hesse was threatened. 
He refused to beg for a special jus, he said, 61 and in 
spite of much opposition he finally had the satisfaction 
of being recognized in the treaty of Osnabrueck as an ad- 
herent of the Augsburg Confession. He refused to 
qualify the Augsburg Confession of his acceptance as 
the "unaltered," because this term was intended to ex- 
press opposition to the Reformed, but he claimed that the 
Reformed of his domain accepted the Editio Princeps of 
1530 pointing to the statement of the Brandenburg theo- 
logians at the Leipzig Colloquy. 62 

This friction between Brandenburg and Saxony added 
new fuel to the confessional controversy between the 
Lutherans and the Reformed. It helps to explain the 
irritation of the Lutherans at the conference in Thorn. 
The need of union was felt. It can easily be understood 
that the reports from the Cassel Colloquy encouraged 
the elector to undertake something along the same line in 
Brandenburg. In fact we know that the participants in 
that colloquy petitioned the Landgrave William VI of 
Hesse to secure the co-operation of Brandenburg and 
Brunswick in a movement for union or at least mutual 
recognition. 63 Frederick William was more than willing 
to respond; he was even determined to use his sover- 
eignty to make confessional peace in his dominions. 

His first step was the publication of a decree (June 

60 Cf. Neve, Luth. Symbolics, pp. 91-100. 

61 Stahl, Luth. Kirche und Union, p. 470. 

62 See above, sub. IV. R. E. XI, 364, 18; R. E. V, 93, 4- For fur- 
ther reading on the whole matter of the elector's struggle for 
recognition we refer to Wangemann I, 1, 133-7. Tschackert, R. E. 
XIX, 246, 28ff. 

63 Mirbt in R. E. Ill, 745, 33ff. 






75 

2nd, 1662) in which he forbade controversial sermons 
and the ridiculing of the doctrinal position of opponents 
by carrying them t@ their logical conclusions. This was 
merely a renewal of a like decree by his grandfather, 
Elector Sigismund. But Frederick William was deter- 
mined to enforce the decree. He demanded that every 
minister should indicate his willingness to obey this de- 
cree by a promise in writing, a "revers" as it was called. 64 
At the same time he forbade the students of theology in 
his dominion to attend the university of Wlittenberg 
where Abraham Calovius and his associates were wield- 
ing their sword of an uncompromising confessionalism 
against union and syncretism. 65 

The climax in the union movements of the "Great Elec- 
tor" came when under the date of August 21, 1662, he 
ordered the Lutheran theologians of Berlin (which in- 
cluded Coelln) to participate in a conference or a dispu- 
tation with the Reformed ministers on the following sub- 
ject: "Whether there was anything taught in the Re- 
formed Confessions (particularly the Brandenburg Con- 
fessions) because of which the individual who believes 
and teaches it must be condemned by divine judgment; 
or whether in the same there was anything denied or 
omitted, the unacquaintance with which, on the part of 
an individual, will make it impossible for God to save 
him." 66 This subject had its root in the Helmstedt the- 
ology that had governed the Cassel colloquy. 67 It had 
been adroitly worded and the plan was evident. To an 
unbiased mind it seemed that there could be only one an- 
swer to this question, and after it was once admitted that 
the Reformed with their faith can be saved, the conclu- 
sion was found to be evident to every fair individual, 
namely that the dissensus was unessential and that a 
union of the two churches on the basis of the consensus 

64 Tschackert in R. E. XIX, 252, 4off. Hering II, 149. 

65 Hering II, 148. Wangemann II, 1, 138. 

66 Wangemann II, 1, 167. 

67 Here we have to copy almost verbatim a few paragraphs of 
our discussion of "Lutheranism under the Church Policy of the 
Hohenzollern." 



76 

was the only reasonable thing. It had escaped the ob- 
servation of the elector that his proposition, together 
with his union plan, rested squarely upon the funda- 
mental mistake of not distinguishing between the Chris- 
tian individual and the Christian Church. The individ- 
ual when he embraces Christ as his Redeemer and is sin- 
cere in what he believes can be saved in the faith in 
which he stands; but to the Church and her ministry 
which is entrusted with the care for souls it is far from 
being a matter of indifference which faith is held and 
what is the doctrina publico,. If in the conviction of 
ministers of the Gospel, one of two ways, one of two 
confessions is better — more in harmony with the Scrip- 
tures, religiously sounder, safer in the leading to Christ 
and his salvation — then that way should be followed un- 
der all circumstances! It is this consideration which 
forbids a church union established upon the consensus 
and ignoring the dissensus. A union of such a nature 
would rest, in the last analysis, upon an indifferentism 
with regard to very essential matters of doctrinal experi- 
ence in the reformation time. It was the judgment even 
of John Musaeus that it ignores the reformation itself. 
When it claims to be a type of Lutheranism it is a de- 
nominational neuter, that cannot propagate its kind, be- 
cause there is no kind to be propagated. 

The conference was held in seventeen sessions covering 
a period of one year and a half (from Sept. 8th, 1662, to 
May 29th, the following year) and was exceedingly un- 
edifying and unpleasant. Paul Gerhardt, the nightin- 
gale of German Protestantism, acted as secretary for the 
Lutherans. As such he formulated, in Latin, many and 
lengthy theological opinions and drafted many replies to 
the Reformed. 68 It is to be deplored that a religious 
genius like Paul Gerhardt was pressed into this work. 
After those debates and unedifying discussions Paul 

68 The originals of these documents are preserved in the 
secret archives in Berlin and are all printed by Langbecker in his 
documentary life of Paul Gerhardt. There they cover fifty print- 
ed pages in the German and Latin languages. 



77 

Gerhardt sang no more hymns. Theological controversy 
is apt to clip the wings of the devotional spirit in its im- 
pulse to express the deep thoughts of God and of the 
pious heart in sacred song. It may be that this is not 
always the case. Luther, for instance, wrote his im- 
mortal catechism of simple child-like religion at a time 
when he was engaged in the fiercest struggle with theo- 
logical opponents. 

What was the result of that debate in seventeen ses- 
sions? Frederick William was disgusted with the stub- 
borness of the Lutherans. He saw that for the present 
there was no prospect of union. The feeling between the 
contending parties was more bitter than before. All he 
could do was to insist upon his prohibition to use pulpit 
and press for controversy. Paul Gerhardt felt in his 
conscience that under the circumstances he could not 
promise in writing to obey the decree. Under the pres- 
sure of many petitions from Gerhardt's congregation, 
the elector finally excused him from signing a document 
expecting that he would act in harmony with the decrees 
without a formal obligation; but it was this expectation 
of the elector that caused Paul Gerhardt to resign his pas- 
torate in Berlin. 69 

VIII. DURAEUS, THE INDEFATIGABLE WORKER FOR A UNION. 

This account of the union movements of the seven- 
teenth century cannot be closed without a brief review 
of the life work of John Duraeus (Bury) who spent 
fully fifty years of untiring activity in the task of bring- 
ing about the union of Protestantism. He was a Scotch- 
man (born 1595, died 1680) who had studied in Oxford 
and became pastor of a congregation of English settlers 
on the peninsula of Elbing (on the Baltic Sea) which 
Gustavus Adolphus had taken from the Poles. Here 
Duraeus became interested in the union movements be- 

69 Cf. Neve in Lutheran Quarterly, 1907, pp. 364, 368ff. : "Paul 
Gerhardt in the Church Troubles of his Time." 



78 

tween Lutherans and Reformed on the continent. 70 
Through the English ambassador and also by the Swed- 
ish chancellor Oxenstierna he was encouraged to make 
himself an agent and a leader in these movements. 71 

The favorable termination of the Leipzig Colloquy 
(1631) 72 created an interest in Protestant union among 
the moderates of the bishops, and the Anglicans sent him 
to Germany as their representative. Here he sought the 
aid of Gustavus Adolphus who received him immediately 
after his great victory over Tilly at Leipzig. 73 The king 
promised him an official recommendation to the Protest- 
ant princes of Germany. But he did not give it, because 
it was not attended to immediately and the king soon fell 
in the battle at Luetzen. This is the explanation of 
Duraeus. The reason, however, may have been that 
Gustavus Adolphus soon observed opposition. One of 
his court preachers (Fabricius) was among the oppo- 
nents, and the other (Matthiae) incurred much enmity 
because he favored the program of Dureaus. 74 Chan- 
cellor Oxenstierna who was the leading man after the 
death of the Swedish king also refused to give him the 
much desired official recommendation because of the op- 
position that could be expected from electoral Saxony. 
Duraeus now sent invitations for a union to many per- 
sons of influence and especially to the faculties of all uni- 
versities. Some of the faculties responded with enthu- 
siasm, among them Helmstedt; but the stricter Luther- 
ans everywhere declined. 75 

Now the situation in England changed. A represen- 
tative of the high church party was elected archbishop. 
As a condition of further support Duraeus who was a 
Presbyterian, was compelled to accept the ordination of 
the Anglican Church. Soon we find him in Sweden. It 
was hoped that a union between the Swedish Lutheran 



70 


R. E. V, 92, soff. 


7i 


Hering II, 90. 


n 


See above, sub. III. 


73 


Hering II, 91. 


74 


Hering II, 92. 


75 


R. E. V, 93, 25. Hering II, I02ff. 



79 

Church and the Anglicans could be effected and that such 
a result then would also have an effect upon the Protest- 
antism of Germany. But again the great statesman 
Oxenstierna refused to appear as an open advocate of 
Protestant union. He merely pointed to the bishops, the 
court-preachers and the faculty at Upsala as the proper 
persons with whom he should confer on the matter. All 
these, with the exception of court-preacher Matthai, re- 
jected his union project, declaring that there was only 
one way for the union of Protestantism, namely for the 
followers of Calvin to turn from their errors and to be- 
come Lutherans. The perseverance of Duraeus is to be 
admired. Growing in the favor of Oxenstierna he used 
the letters of this statesman for gaining admission to the 
dignitaries of the Swedish Church, and he had the satis- 
faction of being invited to appear before a synod (June 
1637) for a colloquy. At that synod the Swedes told 
him that they feared he was too optimistic when he be- 
lieved that the Reformed were willing to accept the Augs- 
burg Confession and become Lutherans. As to the pro- 
posed new confession, which was to embrace all that is 
fundamental, they said that they would be willing to ex- 
amine the same as soon as he was ready to present it 
With much courtesy they bade him farewell, but at the 
same time the government was advised to remove him 
from Sweden so that the Swedish Church might not come 
under the suspicion of leaning to Calvinism/ 6 

But Duraeus could not be induced to abandon his pro- 
ject. In a sickness which followed he vowed that never 
in his life would he give up working for the peace of the 
Church, and in his vow he included the very commend- 
able determination never to make his union program 
subservient to political ends. 77 

In Denmark he was told that rejection of the Calvin- 
istic errors by the Reformed and even the revocation of 

76 Hering II, 106-12; 117. R. E. V, 93, 45ff. 

77 R. E. V, 93, 50. 



80 

their writings against the Lutherans was necessary if a 
union was to be accomplished. 78 

From his journey to the North he returned to the Uni- 
versity of Helmstedt in Brunswick where the atmosphere 
was more congenial. Troubles in England called him 
back to his home country where, under the existing po- 
litical conditions, he again changed his confession and 
returned to the Presbyterian Church. Again he came 
back to the continent, now with a writing of Cromwell. 
But his change of confession gave offense. Even the 
Reformed gave him a cool reception. Dr. Crocius of 
Marburg, one of the participants in the Leipzig Colloquy 
on the Reformed side, suggested that he ought to work 
first for the healing of the schism between the Anglicans 
and the Scotch. But this time he had come with the in- 
tention to work among the Reformed, namely that they 
might agree on a definite plan, on a kind of a new con- 
fession that was to embrace the fundamentals and omit 
theology. Of such a confession he had spoken to the 
Swedes. In his endeavors he found that the Swedes 
were about right when they said that in their opinion 
the Reformed differed from him in their estimate of the 
dissensus. 79 Religion cannot be separated from the- 
ology, at least not in the manner of the Helmstedt School. 
The outcome of the Cassel Colloquy was an encourage- 
ment for Duraeus, but in the following colloquy at Ber- 
lin he was again disappointed. 

Having fallen in with the political movement under 
Cromwell he now saw himself branded as an enemy of 
England after the restoration under Charles II. Con- 
sequently he never returned to his home country. He 
died 1680 at the age of eighty-five years and was buried 
at Cassel near the resting place of the widow of the Re- 
formed Landgrave William VI vho had been his faithful 
supporter through many years. At the end of his days 
he lamented that his life-work had been in vain. 



78 R. E. V, 93, 57. 

79 Hering II, i2off. 



CHAPTER IV. 



GEORGE CALIXTUS AND HIS OPPONENTS. 



Literature : W. Gass, "Georg Callixt und der Synkretis- 
mus," Breslau, 1846. Th. Henke, "G. Calixtus und seine 
Zeit," 2 voll., Halle, 1853-56. Much use has been made in 
this chapter of H. Schmid, "Geschichte der synkretistis- 
chen Streitigkeiten." Erlangen, 1846. This book deals 
in a most thoroughgoing way with the principles of Ca- 
lixtus and the objections of his opponents. The author, 
who is also the author of the widely studied "Doctrinal 
Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church," has care- 
fully classified the leading views of both sides as expres- 
ed in the chief polemical writings produced by the syn- 
kretistic controversies. Considering the methods of that 
time — endess enumerations in ever new connections, no 
distinction between essential and nonessential materials 
and the failing to categorize the various observations — 
makes the work that Schmid undertook one that no writer 
of to-day has the patience to undertake anew. So the 
writer of this chapter shall content himself with follow- 
ing Schmid and simply refer to the writings examined by 
him in foot notes in order that any one may verify the 
statements for himself. 

See the article on "Georg Calixt' in Meusel, Kirchli- 
ches Handlexikon (1st ed.) I, 632ff. ; also Lutheran Cy- 
clopedia, pp. 474ff. Valuable are the contributions of 
Tschackert in R. E. on "Georg Callixt" (III, 644ff.), on 
"Synkretismus" (XIX, 239fi\), on "Synkretistische Strei- 
tigkeiten" (XIX, 243ff.) See also in R. E. Kunze on 
"Musaeus" (XIII, 572ff.), also on "Abr. Calovius" (III, 
648ff.) Kurtz, Church History (Engl.) 1888, §159. 

81 



82 

Tholuck, "Geist der luth. Theologen Wittenbergs" 
(1852) ; "Kirchliches Leben des siebzehnten Jahrhun- 
derts" (1861). Neve, "Die Galesburger Hegel" and "Die 
Kirchengemeinschaftsfrage und der Schriftbeweis," 
1919. The works of Schaff, Stahl, Hering, Wangemann, 
Langbecker as quoted before. 

I. PREPARATORY INFLUENCES UPON CALIXTUS. 

George Calixtus, professor in the University of Helm- 
stedt for forty-two years (from 1614 to 1656), was the 
man who furnished the formulas for the irenic move- 
ments in the seventeenth century. In the colloquies at 
Thorn (1645), at Cassel (1661), at Berlin (1662), in all 
the activity of John Dury and other advocates of a union 
in that day, the principles that were back of the argu- 
ments of the friends of a union could usually be traced 
to the theories of George Calixtus. He was different 
from the Lutheran theologians at Wittenberg, Leipzig, 
Strasburg and Jena in the appreciation of the distin- 
guishing doctrines of the churches. A good deal of light 
falls upon Calixtus as the theologian of irenics when we 
acquaint ourselves with the university in which he was a 
student and a teacher for so many years. 

1. The Helmstedt University. 

It is interesting to study the early history of the Helm- 
stedt University which no longer exists. 1 It was founded 
1576 by Duke Julius of Brunswick as a strictly Lutheran 
university. The Duke himself was a zealous promoter 
of the Formula of Concord. Men like Chemnitz and 
Chytraeus were his advisers in drafting the constitution 
of the new school and in selecting the first professors. 

i Compare Gass, Georg Calixt und der Synkretismus, pp. iof. 
Schmid, Geschichte der synkretistischen Streitigkeiten, pp. 1-26. 
Henke, G. Calixt und seine Zeit, I, pp. 1-77. A monography which 
the writer could not consult is Henke, Die Universitaet Helms- 
tedt im 16. Jahrhundert. Halle, 1833. 



, 83 

But in the year 1579 he assumed an attitude of outright 
antagonism to the Formula of Concord and conservative 
Lutheranism* 2 Here we have, historically speaking, the 
explanation of the developing difference between Helm- 
stedt and the other universities of seventeenth century 
Lutheranism. 

Duke Julius was followed by his son Henry Julius 
(1589), and soon a step was taken, which in the course of 
a few years made Helmstedt radically different from all 
other universities. John Casselius, a learned humanist, 
was called as professor, and soon most of the chairs in 
the university were occupied by friends of Casselius and 
advocates of humanism. Among these was the brilliant 
Cornelius Martini of Antwerp. The humanism of Helm- 
stedt had its chief seat in the philosophical faculty which 
had a dominating influence over the other faculties. The 
old classics', history and philosophy were much studied, 
not as means to an end, namely for the establishment of 
Biblical doctrines, as Luther had done, but as an end in 
itself. It was the age of Descart when philosophy began 
to emancipate itself and refused to be the handmaid of 
theology. 

It has frequently been said that the humanism as culti- 
vated in Helmstedt created a kind of common ground 
with Calvinism. 3 When this is admitted it should not be 



2 The real causes back of that enstrangement were not very 
creditable to the duke. For the purpose of holding to his house 
the benefice ("Bistum") of Magdeburg, to which his oldest son 
had been elected as a child, he had him ordained with all the 
papal ceremonies, and in order to secure like ecclesiastical pos- 
sessions for his two younger sons, he had them receive the ton- 
sura or the shaven crown. In consequence of these things he 
lost standing among the Lutheran princes and theologians. Chem- 
nitz reproached him in a letter. All the ministers preached 
against the offense on a certain Sunday. The princes of 
Wuertemberg, Electoral Saxony, Brandenburg and the Pala- 
tinate sent letters of complaint and reproach. All this criticism 
irritated Duke Julius. He dismissed Chemnitz and other theo- 
logians. From this time on his interest in the work of Concord 
through a united confession of Lutheranism disappeared, and he 
began to take an independent position, which was gradually seen 
in the character of the university. 

3 Cf. Loescher, Historia motuum II, i87ff. Schmid 14-16. 



84 

taken to mean that humanism as such favors Calvinism 
as a dogmatic system; but this is true that Calvinism, 
like humanism, is averse to doctrinal definiteness and to 
the insistence upon dogma as it has found expression in 
the Formula of Concord. It was this trait of humanism 
which made the Helmstedt theologians Melanchthonians. 
When the Melanchthonians were up-rooted in electoral 
Saxony, (cf. chapter two, III) many of them withdrew 
from theology and, devoting themselves to philosophy, 
became humanists. As such they frequently became in- 
different to religion and found themselves in an attitude 
of opposition to the orthodoxy of their age, upon which 
they looked with an air of condescension. 

Of the Helmstedt professors in the philosophical 
faculty, however, it could not be said that they were hos- 
tile to theology, not even that they unduly exalted reason 
and opposed it to revelation. What they opposed was the 
barbarism of polemics as it was practiced in the contro- 
versies between the churches. They held that a different 
fundamental education in the classics and in ancient phi- 
losophy — in the humaniora — would make a more palata- 
ble theology. Schmid, the author of the well-known 
standard-book on old Lutheran dogmatics, has the fol- 
lowing very fitting remark: "The staleness and im- 
moderateness of polemics, yea, the coarseness that char- 
acterized the controversies of the time find their expla- 
nation largely in the neglect of the humaniora; for in 
classical antiquity there lies a spirit of moderation and 
fine culture, which, to their great detriment, the Luth- 
eran theologians had been losing more and more." 4 

The humanistic character of the Helmstedt school was 
seen in its interest in history and particularly in the his- 
tory of the ancient church as it was cultivated also by 
Calixtus himself when he became a teacher in this uni- 
versity. 5 Humanism, when dissatisfied with the pres- 

4 Geschichte der synkretistischen Streitigkeiten, p. 17. 

5 Writings in which Calixtus emphasized the study of history 
were his Apparatus Theologicus of 1628, and the Orationes Sel- 
lectae of 1659. He wrote a Fragmentum Historiae Ecclesiae Oc- 
cidentalis (1656) and various monographies on the history of an- 
cient dogmas. All his writings show the historical view-points. 



85 

ent, flees into antiquity. There it likes to trace the be- 
ginning of historical developments and to find the correc- 
tives for the misdevelopments of the centuries. 6 

2. Calixtus as a Student. 

It was this Melanchthonian-humanistic atmosphere 
into which Calixtus came, 1603, and where he remained 
as a student for six years. He came from Medelbye 
(Schleswig), a little village visibly near the place where 
the writer spent his boyhood days, at that time ignorant 
of the fact that from that insignificant little place of sand 
and heath had come one of the most interesting charac- 
ters in the history of Protestantism. Here the father of 
Calixtus had been pastor for fifty years (1568-1618). 
He had been a pupil of Melanchthon in Wittenberg, after 
the death of Luther, and in opposition to the Flacianists 
he was an outspoken Melanchthonian, an opponent of the 
Formula of Concord. On this question he had settled the 
mind of his son before he was ready to go to the univer- 
sity. When the university was to be chosen there was 
only one that could be considered — Helmstedt. 7 

Four of the six years that young Calixtus 8 spent at 
Helmstedt he devoted to the humaniora. As a highly ap- 
preciated student he soon came into close personal rela- 
tion with his teachers, among them Casselius and Mar- 
tini. When he graduated, the university had already de- 
cided to call him as professor at the first vacancy. In the 
meantime, Calixtus started on his extensive travels which 
form no small part of his education as a theologian. He 
visited German universities, and in the company of 
a wealthy man he saw many places in Belgium, Holland, 
England and France. Wherever he came, he made a 
close study of the churches, particularly of the various 

6 Cf. Schmid, p. 234. 

7 See especially Henke I, 8off. 

8 The family name was Kallisoen. In Schleswig to-day that 
same name is usually Callisen. The young student at Helmstedt 
Latinized it to Calixtus and Medelbye to Medeloboa and so signed 
himself under the Latin poems which he published. 



creeds. He came into frequent controversy with the 
Romanists and once had a public disputation with the 
Jesuits. Fear of falling into their hands kept him from 
continuing his educational journeys into Italy. Now and 
then, on returning from journeys, he lectured at Helm- 
stedt. On December 12th, 1614, his Alma Mater called 
him as regular professor in recognition of the skill with 
which he had debated with the Romanists. In this posi- 
tion he taught and wrote for forty-two years. 

II. THE THEORIES OF CALIXTUS AND THE REPLY OF LUTH- 

ERANISM. 

1. Calixtus on Fundamentals and Nonfundamentals. 

The position of Calixtus was, generally speaking, that 
agreement in the fundamentals as he defined them is a 
sufficient basis for mutual recognition and co-operation. 
He did not advocate organic union of the churches before 
these had succeeded in settling some of the nonfunda- 
mentals. But on the basis of agreement in the funda- 
mental doctrines of Christianity he made an appeal for 
mutual recognition and co-operation, which, he hoped, 
would soon lead into full and actual union. 

It is important to understand what was to him a fun- 
damental doctrine. He would answer: It is a doctrine 
that is necessary to be believed for salvation ; a doctrine 
which no one, be he layman or theologian, can ignore 
without endangering his salvation. He referred to the 
belief in an eternal life ; that body and soul are to be rais- 
ed up to receive this life ; that it will be a life with God, 
our Creator ; that it can be attained only through Christ, 
His Son, our Redeemer; that this life is to be communi- 
cated by the Holy Ghost in the holy Christian Church. 9 
Following Bonaventura, he divided the material of the 
Church's teaching into three classes: (1) Antecedentia: 

9 Schmid, referring to Calixtus, Ad Moguntinos, theses 30-40. 



87 



Into this class belong all religious matters which man, 
without the aid of revelation, can know by his own na- 
tural powers, — such as the immortality of the soul; also 
such things as knowledge of the Scriptures, familiarity 
with its interpretation and like matters: (2) Constitu- 
entia: These are the real matters of faith, the objects of 
revelation for the salvation of man: (3) Consequential 
These are the doctrines of a more or less theological char- 
acter that are derived from the fundamentals and incor- 
porated into the creeds, — such as predestination, the per- 
sonal union of the two natures in Christ and the doctrine 
of the Supper. 30 Fundamental to Calixtus were only the 
matters belonging to the second of these categories, the 
constituentia. 

2. Appeal to Tradition and to the Apostles' Creed. 

(a) Calixtus appealed to the doctrinal tradition of 
the early Church, that is, to the Church of the first five 
centuries, or to what was then taught the catechumens 
(consensus quinquasaecularis) . In the catechetical 
teaching of the early Church he saw a kind of a norm of 
such truth as is fundamental for salvation. He admit- 
ted that the Scriptures are the sole source of truth 
(unum, primum et summum principium, Hauptprinzip) , 
but at the same time he insisted that besides the Scrip- 
tures the teaching of the early Church was to be taken as 
a real criterion of fundamental truth (as an alterum 
principium secundarium or subordinatum). 11 To prove 
his position he referred to the promise of Christ that His 
Spirit was to lead in all truth. He emphasized that the 
Church had had its purest representation in the Apostolic 
age and in the centuries nearest to that age. 12 Among 
the Lutheran theologians it was especially Abraham Ca- 

io Ad Moguntinos 66, 71, 44. Cf. Schmid, pp. I56ff., 187E., 
267ft., 270ft. 

11 Schmid, p. I48f. 

12 Cf. Schmid, I3iff., 147ft., 245. 



88 

lovius who contradicted Calixtus in his theory on tradi- 
tion. He insisted that the Scriptures are the only infal- 
lible norm of true doctrine and that in no meaning can 
tradition be a secondary principle of truth. He declared 
that it was arbitrary to limit the application of passages 
like Mt. 16 :18, 1 Tim. 3 :15, and John 14 :26 to the Church 
of the first five centuries; all that can be proved from 
such passages is that in the Church divine truth will not 
perish. 13 

(b) Later, Calixtus did not speak so much of tradi- 
tion because he had settled upon the Apostles' Creed as 
the concrete expression of what in his opinion was funda- 
mental in the teaching of the early Church. He argued 
that the ancient Church in its earliest form was certainly 
in possession of all truth needed for salvation, and that in 
the Apostles' Creed the Church had once for all expressed 
what is fundamental or necessary to be known for salva- 
tion ; to this nothing needs to be added. Calovius did not 
deny that the early Church had the whole truth needed 
for salvation. He even admitted that all true doctrinal 
development of succeeding ages could be in no conflict 
with the statements of the Apostles' Creed. But he op- 
posed the claim that the Apostles' Creed expresses all 
that is fundamental in the Scriptures ; that it contains the 
fundamentals with such a perfection and completion that 
nothing needs to be added, amplified, or defined, and that 
in its simple general form it is a sufficient and adequate 
norm of truth for all times. 14 

It is to be kept in mind that the purpose of Calixtus in 
his appeal to antiquity was to support his claim of a 
virtually existing union (communio interna) between the 
churches. Of this we shall treat below (sub 3). 

Before proceeding to other topics of the controversy let 
us here interpose a few critical remarks on the subject 
under review. While it is true that in the Apostles' Creed 

13 Calovius, Syncretismus Calixtinus, pp. 10, 143. 
3i2f. 

14 Calovius, Syncretismus Calixtinus, pp. 10, 143. 



89 

we have an admirable expression of the rudiments of re- 
vealed truth it is after all only a general outline upon 
which the structure of the Christian faith, the fides quae 
creditur, in its individual parts was to be erected. The 
erection of this structure of Christian teaching was to 
take place through the process of a progressive doctrinal 
experience, chiefly in conflict with error. In the articles 
of the Apostles' Creed as it developed out of the Baptis- 
mal Formula we have the formulation of only the first 
doctrinal experience of the ancient Church. To demand 
of the Church after the Reformation that it should limit 
its public confession to the statements of the Apostles' 
Creed would be equal to compelling the full-grown man to 
return again to the stage of development of the boy. 

3. The Apostles' Creed and Later Creeds. Religion as 
. - an Opposite to Theology. 

(a) The position of Calixtus. Baur, the founder of 
the Tuebingen School, once said that Calixtus undertook 
to lead the Church back from theology to religion. And 
indeed, his attempt to put the Apostles' Creed in opposi- 
tion to the other creeds of Christendom was an endeavor 
to establish religion and theology as opposites. That 
this cannot be done in entire harmony with the genius of 
Lutheranism will be shown in a later section of this chap- 
ter (sub. III). 

As has been pointed out, Calixtus had established him- 
self upon a distinction between fundamentals and non- 
fundamentals. Fundamental, he said, is what is neces- 
sary to be known and to be believed for salvation. To 
the plain statements of the Apostles'Creed nothing of a 
fundamental nature can be added. The later more elabo- 
rate creeds contain fundamentals only where the sub- 
stance of that creed is repeated in a practically identical 
form ; wherever the later creeds offer interpretation and 
qualification of the Apostles' Creed and additional ma- 
terial, there they no longer express fundamentals. Such 
interpretative and supplementary matter which was ne- 



90 



cessitatedby the activity of the heretics has no signifi- 
cance for the ordinary Christian ; it is material for teach- 
ers only, by which these should be guided in their work. 15 
Many of the Church's teachers, however, Calixtus con- 
tinued, have made the mistake of delving too much into 
mysteries, such as the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, 
original sin, the relation of God's grace to man's will in 
conversion and other matters. They should have con- 
tented themselves with simply teaching what is clearly 
revealed and needs to be known for salvation. So Calix- 
tus, as an irenic, argued in his zeal for bridging the 
chasm between the churches and tried to make the dif- 
ferences appear to be of minor consideration. He la- 
mented that the terms of the school had been permitted 
to coin the expressions of pure religion, such statements, 
for instance, as this : that he who repents and believes in 
Christ and accepts His merit has forgiveness of sins and 
shall have eternal life. 16 He did not deny that occasions 
might arise when a teacher is compelled to go beyond the 
clearly revealed statements of Scripture (p. 152). But 
this, he said, should be done only in theological discussion, 
with much reticence and with a consciousness that man 
will always be denied a full insight into the mysteries of 
the Christian faith (154). Then he insisted, as we have 
seen, that such doctrinal differences are not fundamental 
for salvation and, therefore, do not affect the virtual 
union (communio virtualis) between the churches. 

Regarding the later and more theological creeds, Ca- 
lixtus made a distinction between the creeds of the first 
five centuries and the creeds of the Reformation age. 
Upon the former he looked as confessional testimonies of 
the theologically fundamental period of the Church's 
life — theological in character, and for that reason not 
necessary for salvation, — but offering a basis upon which 
all the churches ought to be able to unite. As to the 
confessions of the Reformation, he would again say: 

15 Cf. Schmid, pp. I48f, I5iff., 160. 

16 See Schmid, 162. 



91 

Either they repeat the plain statements of the Apostles' 
Creed, and in such parts they are fundamental for salva- 
tion; or they interpret that creed and deduct additional 
doctrines from it (per consequentiam), in which cases 
they constitute no articles of faith, but are intended to 
serve only the teachers of the Church. He even went so 
far as to call the doctrinal differences between the 
churches "questiones annatae." 17 

(b) Reply from the Lutherans. The opponents of 
Calixtus (Calovius, Huelsemann, Dannhauer and also 
Musaeus) had a different appreciation of the more theo- 
logical creeds of Christendom, and it cannot be denied 
that in the main they were correct in their positions. To 
them the Apostles' Creed was merely a general outline of 
the Church's faith, a first attempt to state the essentials 
of truth. The statements of this creed, they would say, 
expressed' the Christian faith seminally, with the need of 
development and further unfolding. 

The leading objections of Calovius were as follows: 
The Apostles' Creed was not formulated for the purpose 
of giving to the believers of all ages a really complete 
summary of the Christian faith, otherwise the Nicene 
and the Chalcedonian creeds would never have been 
drafted. The later creeds of the ancient Church, how- 
ever, do not make it their object to interpret or to supple- 
ment the Apostles' Creed; they were simply written to 
meet the errorists of the age, such as Arius, who denied 
the full divinity of Christ, the Macedonians who denied 
the personality and the divinity of the Spirit, the Nesto- 
rians and Monophysites who held fundamental errors re- 
garding person and nature in Christ. In meeting such 
errorists, the Church found itself called upon to state 
other features of revealed truth, which were essential and 
fundamental, but had so far not been generally recogniz- 
ed. He took the position that all revealed truth is fun- 
damental for salvation in one or another way, and that in 

17 See Schmid, pp. 200, 209. Ci. Meusel, Kirchliches Handlexi- 
kon I, 634. 



92 

the later creeds of the first five centuries, as also of the 
Reformation, we have new and needed statements of 
Scripture truths. And these, he insisted, have their sig- 
nificance not merely for the teacher of the Church, but for 
every soul. It is for this reason that the confessions of 
Lutheranism contain articles of faith, that must also be 
counted among the fundamentals. 18 Calovius pointed to 
the undeniable fact that the various heresies, which had 
been the occasion for the development of the dogma, con- 
stituted temptations and dangers for the life of the 
Church, and that their rejection in the creeds had much 
to do with the faith of the Church and for this reason the 
creeds offer an important message for the common Chris- 
tian, even if it is the special duty of the teacher to inter- 
pret that message. 19 

4. The Inner Union Claimed by Calixtus. 

On the basis of his theory of fundamentals and non- 
fundamentals in connection with his distinction between 
Apostles' Creed and later creeds, Calixtus declared that 
notwithstanding the external division there was a virtual 
union (communio interna) between Lutherans and Re- 
formed and even Rome, that needed only to be recognized. 
He admitted that an outward union (communio actualis 
et externa per sacramentum) was not possible as long as 
these churches were wrongfully charging each other 
with fundamental errors. He admitted that the doctrine 
of the Lord's Supper was a serious obstacle to an exter- 
nal union between Lutherans and Reformed, 20 but not be- 
cause of the doctrinal difference in itself — for it is not a 
fundamental doctrine — but because of the place of this 
sacrament in the cultus of the Church and because of the 
tenacity with which the churches hold to their differing 
opinions. 21 

18 Cf. Schmid, p. 201. 

19 See Calovius, Syncretismus Calixtinus, pp. 143, 150, 153, and 
many other places ; also Digressio de Nova Theologia, p. 910. Cf. 
Schmid, ut supra, pp. i47ff-» 20off., 247-53, 29iff., 4096?. 

20 Cf. Schmid, pp. 172, i87ff., 1916*., 232ff. 

21 Cf. Schmid, pp. 172, 175-77, 1S7S., I9iff.» 232. 



93 

The Lutherans admitted that they had much in com- 
mon with the Reformed. Notwithstanding hard words 
that fell in the controversy, they did not seriously regard 
the Reformed like Jews and heathen, not even as sects 
like the Anabaptists and Socinians. They accorded them 
the name of a church. 22 But they denied the existence 
of a real union in the faith. The differences, to them, 
were differences in the faith. Calixtus insisted upon dis- 
tinguishing in every doctrine between the quid and the 
quomodo, that is between the substance and the manner 
of teaching it. But the Lutherans answered: It is not 
enough to know that Christ is the Saviour, but it is also 
necessary to know how He saves; the teaching on the 
way of salvation, on the means of grace and on man's 
attitude are by no means nonfundamental matters. It is 
in the conflicts on these very important doctrines, they 
insisted, that the differences on the commonly accepted 
doctrines appear. Dannhauer declared: The churches 
accept the words of the creed, but they disagree in the 
meaning of them, which shows that the assumption of an 
existing union is after all a deception. 23 

The Lutherans refused to distinguish between funda- 
mentals and nonfundamentals after the theory of Calix- 
tus. Their arguments were as follows : The Scriptures 
speak of no such distinction and draw no line. Truth is 
an organism. In this organism there are parts of seem- 
ingly minor importance, but even these cannot be re- 
moved without injuring the whole. Dannhauer declared 
it to be a mistake to call only those doctrines articles of 
faith, which must be believed for salvation; many doc- 
trines of Scripture, which are not fundamental in that 
sense, are nevertheless articles of faith because of the 
help and comfort they give to the seeking sinner and to 
the Christian. As such he mentions the doctrine of the 
real presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Supper. 24 

22 Schmid, pp. 211, 306. 

23 Mysterium Syncretismi, p. 45. Schmid, 29off. 

24 Cf. Schmid, pp. 217, 293. 



94 



Calixtus took the position that no church could call 
itself the true Church, because all churches, Rome in-, 
eluded, have the fundamentals of the Apostles' Creed. He 
regarded the Lutheran Church as the purest in theology, 
but in matters-necessary for salvation he could see no dif- 
ference/ The greater or lesser purity, he said, was touch- 
ing not the religion, but merely the theology of the 
churches. 25 

It was in connection with the problem of an existing 
virtual union between the churches that the question was 
asked: Who is a heretic and what is a heresy? Here 
Calixtus had to express himself. In consistency with his 
leading views he said: We must distinguish between 
error and heresy. Departure from the statements of the 
Apostles' Creed constitutes a heresy, and a heretic, in 
this sense, is not in the union of faith with other Chris- 
tians. But departure from the teaching of the later 
creeds and from the doctrinal matters derived from the 
Apostles' Creed per consequentiam constitutes merely an 
error which does not affect the union of faith. 26 A here- 
tic, then, in the proper sense of that term, is he only, who 
rejects an article of faith as it is plainly expressed in the 
Apostles' Creed. 27 Furthermore, it is one who rejects 
that article of faith consciously and who intentionally 
makes himself the cause of a schism, not one who by 
providence finds himself in a schismatic communion. 28 
The Lutherans objected to the distinction between 
Apostles' Creed and later creeds in this discussion. Ca- 
lovius declared that such a definition of heresy was cer- 
tainly opposed to the practice of the Church which de- 
manded subscription to the later creeds as proof of or- 
thodoxy. 29 He further reminded Calixtus that if adop- 
tion of the Apostles' Creed only is sufficient as evidence 



25 Schmid, pp. 172, 221, 225. 

26 Schmid, pp. I72ff., 26off. Calixtus, Desiderium et Stud., etc., 
§6 De Tolerantia, thesis 4. 

27 Ad Moguntinos, th. 86. 

28 Calixtus, Epicrisis Theol., th. 44. 

29 Schmid, 262. Calovius, Syncretismus Calixtinus, pp. 164, 167. 



95 

of orthodoxy then even the Arians, Socinians, Arminians 
and Anabaptists could not have been charged with 
heresy. 30 

As we have seen, Calixtus did not demand an organic 
union of the churches as long as serious theological dif- 
ficulties stood in the way, but he pleaded for the recogni- 
tion of an existing union (communio virtulis )in the 
fundamentals of the Apostles' Creed. On this basis he de- 
manded an attitude of mutual recognition of each other as 
true churches being orthodox in the fundamentals of the 
faith. The Lutherans declared that if there were a real in- 
ner union in the matters pertaining to salvation then the 
obstacle for an external union would be removed and the 
full union should be consummated, but they denied the 
existence of an inner union and, therefore, declared that 
a recognition, such as Calixtus was advocating, would be 
infidelity to truth. Even the milder university of Jena 
with John Musaeus took this position. Rejecting the 
theory of Calixtus regarding the fundamentals, these 
Jena theologians declared that the Church is steward not 
merely over a certain number of doctrines that seem to 
be particularly important, but over all revealed truth that 
is helpful in leading souls in the way of salvation. They 
argued that if the Lutheran Church is serious in her par- 
ticular confession and is appealing to the Scriptures with 
good conscience she cannot recognize the opposing 
churches as orthodox and evangelical, but is in duty 
bound to testify against their errors; otherwise she 
would be espousing the principle that one conception of 
religion is as good as the other. 31 They recognized with 
the Formula of Concord that in the other churches there 
are many true Christians that are erring innocently. 
These, they said, can be regarded as brethren. But, it 
was added, there is not always a way of knowing their 
inner attitude and, therefore, the rule will have to be that 
individuals must be judged after their public confession 

30 Schmid, 263. Calovius, Digressio, p. 923. 

31 Report of the faculty, published in Calovius' Historia Syn- 
cretismi, pp. 999*1 



96 

in the church in which they are members. As to recog- 
nizing other churches as true churches the position was 
taken that this could not be done consistently when, these 
had confessionally established themselves upon positions 
subversive of the creed of the church of which recogni- 
tion is expected. 32 

III. AN ESTIMATE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF CALIXTUS AND OF 
THE LUTHERANS OF HIS AGE. 

1. Distinction Between Church and Individual, 

(a) The distinction between fundamentals and non- 
fundamentals, when applied to the question of mutual 
recognition, in the hope of union, cannot be made by ask- 
ing : What is indispensable for the individual to know and 
to believe in order to be saved? Calixtus failed to dis- 
tinguish between Church and individual. Regarding the 
individual, salvation depends upon an attitude of the soul 
to Christ, not upon the knowledge and acceptance of a 
fixed number of doctrines. But it is also true, having 
faith in Christ the intellect is not altogether passive. The 
Gospel which is accepted calls for a doctrinal expression 
even in the mind of the common believer. But no hard 
and comprehensive rule can be made as to the details of 
such doctrinal expression. For an individual with little 
religious training, when it comes to the last struggle, it 
may be only one thought centering about Christ as the 
Saviour from sin, consequently much less than is con- 
tained in the Apostles' Creed. In another again, who 
grew up in a Christian environment under careful in- 
struction in Scripture truth a much larger insight into 
divine truth would be natural, so that elements of even 
the later creeds would be embraced in his confession. 
And then again, it is one thing not to know or not to have 
a clear conception of fundamental truth, and quite an- 

32 Cf. Schmid, pp. 4i3f. 



97 

other to reject such truth with purpose and against con- 
viction. It should also not be denied that a larger reli- 
gious knowledge is helpful to the soul in finding the way 
of salvation. But in the whole discussion too much was 
left out of consideration that the question is an alto- 
gether different one when the object in view is the 
mutual recognition of the churches and when the aim is to 
prepare the way for Church union. Here the Lutherans 
were right when they took the position that all Scripture 
truth is fundamental, which aids the Church in its work 
of winning souls for Christ and of leading the congrega- 
tion of believers in all truth. 33 

(b) Calixtus demanded that churches of different 
creeds should recognize each other as "true" churches. 
To support his demand he asked his Lutheran opponents : 
Can the members of other churches not be saved? God 
Himself adopts His children, and we must recognize them 
as brethren in the faith. 34 Such argument sounded well 
and was bound to make the position of Calixtus popular. 
But Schmid remarks very correctly that this argument 
was forcing the question and cutting the knot of a prob- 
lem which he was unable to solve theologically (p. 213). 
Is it not possible for a Lutheran with right views on the 
relation between the visible and the invisible Church to 
believe that there are children of God and, therefore, 
members of the One Holy Christian Church in other 
churches and in individual cases even to recognize them 
as such, but at the same time to say with Art. VII of the 
Augsburg Confession: "The Church is the congrega- 
tion of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly (recte) 
taught and the sacraments rightly (recte) administer- 
ed? 35 According to the Lutheran conception, Scriptural 

33 See the fine discussion of Stahl in Lutherische Kirche und 
Union, pp. 33aff. 

34 Schmid, p, 173. 

35 This twice repeated recte was not in the earlier drafts of 
the Confession, but was added by Melanchthon before its delivery 
at Augsburg. Postscripts are never slips of the pen, but are seri- 
ously meant. This recte is again twice repeated in the Apology. 
Cf. Neve, Lutheran Symbolics, pp. I74ff- 



98 

teaching of the faith is one mark of the Church where it 
comes into visibility as an outward organization. 36 

(c) The Lutherans of the age of Calixtus inclined to 
the other mistake : They made Christianity and the sal- 
vation of the individual too much dependent upon ortho- 
doxy of faith. They overlooked the fact that a sincere 
Christian can live in doctrinal errors and may even de- 
fend them. They said: When he has been sufficiently 
instructed then the responsibility is upon him. But con- 
sidering the tenacity of prejudices, the natural fidelity to 
the church into which an individual was born and the 
influence of environment, the seventeenth century Luth- 
erans were not right when they took the position that 
"sufficient instruction" is bound to convert the lover of 
truth. They were defective in their psychology. But in 
this they were right: that in the relation of church to 
church, recognition of an existing internal union and 
public fellowship in the faith must be regulated by the 
public profession. 

Note. A few remarks on the definition of heresy may 
here find a place. The statement of Calixtus, when he 
limited the application of heresy to doctrines opposed to 
the statements of the Apostles' Creed, cannot be accepted, 
because the later and more theological creeds also deal 
with matters essential to the faith. But on the other 
hand, it cannot be denied that in his desire to distinguish 
between outright heresy and mere error he was giving 
expression to a fact generally acknowledged among the 
Lutherans of to-day, namely that there is indeed an es- 
sential difference between errors such, for instance, as 
are held by the Socinians and those that mark the differ- 
ences between the Lutherans and Reformed. 



36 For a complete discussion of the problems here involved 
the writer must refer to his interpretation of Article VII of the 
Augsburg Confession in "The Augsburg Confession." (Luth. Pub- 
lication Society, Philadelphia, 1914), PP- 92ff., and in "Introduc- 
tion to Lutheran Symbolics" (Lutheran Book Concern, Columbus, 
O., 1917), PP. 173-82. 






99 



2. The Teaching of Calixtus as a Reaction Against the 
Orthodoxism of His Age. 
From the standpoint of conservative Lutheranism the 
positions of Calixtus, as they have been viewed, cannot 
be accepted. This has been the practically unanimous 
verdict of the Lutherans of his own age (the more liberal 
Jena School included) , of the great Lutheran theologians 
who wrote in the second third of the nineteenth century, 
and of Lutheranism in America. 37 But an erroneous po- 
sition strong enough to create a school usually derives its 
life from the need of opposition to another extreme. It 
cannot be denied that in the age of Calixtus Lutheranism 
was in need of correctives. Orthodoxy had degenerated 
into orthodoxism. 38 The continuous controversies be- 
tween Lutheranism and Calvinism had led to an intel- 
lectualism and to a preaching of pure theology in the pul- 
pits, which yielded little bread to Gospel-hungry souls. 
The ubiquity was a favored subject for discussion in the 
sermons. The appeal to the congregations was of such 
a nature that the layman was hardly regarded a full 
Christian unless he was a theologian. And with it all 
went a polemics that in most cases was out of place in 
the pulpits. 39 The Lutherans of the seventeenth century 
went too far in identifying religious truth with the theo- 
logical and dialectical formulation of the same. In the 
practical life of the Church there are situations where, in 
the application, a distinction between religion and the- 
ology must be observed. In denominational problems it 
has not always been easy to properly distinguish between 
the fides qua and the fides quae creditur, that is, the sub- 
jective and the objective faith. In the distinction of 
Calixtus between the simple facts of the Apostles' Creed 
and the later creeds of a more theological nature, we have 
the reaction against the intellectualism of the seventeenth 

37 We refer to the article "Georg Calixt" in Meusel, Kirchl. 
Handlexikon I, 632ft. 

38 Cf. Kurtz, Church History, 1888, Sec. 159- 

39 We refer to chapter III, Sect. VI, 1, p. 67. 



100 



century Lutheranism. But the theory of Calixtus was 
unacceptable. His distinction between religion and the- 
ology was too mechanical. It must never be left out of 
view that to a certain degree theology, true Scriptural 
theology, will always have to be the form of the objective 
faith, without which a healthy subjective faith cannot be 
cultivated in the Church. 

3. The "Internal Union.'* 

Calixtus , assertion of a practically existing internal 
union (communio interna virtualis) could be made only 
by an almost entire abstraction from the objective faith, 
the fides quae creditur. Common recognition of the 
Apostles' Creed did not mean much, because the differ- 
ences appeared in the interpretation of that creed. 40 
That internal union, then, had a certain degree of reality 
only when regard was had to the fides qua creditur, that 
is to the relation and attitude of the heart to God and His 
Son as Saviour from sin. The Pietists, especially the 
newly converted among them, are always unionists when 
it comes to denominational problems. The profound im- 
pression from their religious experience leads them to 
regard all as brethren in the faith who have had a like 
experience. But, if the spiritual development and growth 
of such a newly converted individual is normal, then the 
time is bound to come when he feels the need of linking 
his religious experience with the doctrinal experiences of 
the historic Church. The Church's doctrinal experience 
was crystalized in the creeds. So, then, purely pietistic 
Christians develop into confessional Christians with de- 
nominational interests. This can be observed, to a cer- 
tain extent, even in the history of Methodism. Its be- 
ginning was an unbounded spiritual enthusiasm, but in 
the course of time it became an independent church, and 
to-day cultivates with great zeal its peculiar denomina- 
tional features, There was a marked defect in Calixtus* 

40 Cf. Dannhauer, Mysterium Syncretismi, p. 45. 



101 



claim of an internal union, particularly when we view 
this claim on the background of his special interest, 
namely of blazing the trail for a full union of the 
churches. For it is to be kept in mind that while Ca- 
lixtus, for the time being, did not demand more than 
mutual recognition, toleration and co-operation, his aim 
was a complete union. The conferences at Cassel and 
Berlin (see chapter III) and the development of the nine- 
teenth century drew the consequences from the theories 
of Calixtus. 

4. The Question of Co-operation. 

The question of co-operation between churches of dif- 
fering creeds cannot here be discussed in all its bearings. 
But the problem can be made practical for discussion by 
two statements: (1) There can be co-operation only 
where such co-operation does not involve a practical de- 
nial of confessional principles. (2) But even in cases 
not necessarily involving such denial a practical interest 
may forbid co-operation, in cases namely where there 
would be reason to believe that by force of circumstances 
it would be productive of indifferentism and unionism 
with regard to essentials. 41 

5. Calixtus Failed to Appreciate the Reformation. 

Calixtus failed to appreciate the Reformation as a cre- 
ative epoch in the doctrinal development of the Church. 
Prof. Tschackert, himself an advocate of irenics as to 
the relation between the Lutherans and the Reformed 
and strongly opposed to the seventeenth century Luth- 
eranism and sympathetic with Calixtus, writes at the close 
of his article on "Georg Calixt" in the Realencyklopaedie : 
"As regards his irenics, we shall acknowledge and highly 
appreciate his good intention. But in taking the posi- 

41 Cf. Neve, "Die Galesburger Regel," and "Die Kirchengeme- 
inschaftsfrage und der Schriftbeweis." 



102 

tion that the Apostles' Creed and the consensus quinqua- 
saecularis is the best representation of Christianity he 
proved that he did not have the proper appreciation of 
the religious contents of the Reformation. Upon the 
standpoint of Calixtus the historic reformation of Luther 
loses its specific value. The natural consequence was in- 
differentism towards the confessions of the Church, 
which evidenced itself in the conversion of Lutheran 
princes and princesses to Roman Catholicism." 42 Ca- 
lixtus was Lutheran in name, but he ignored the historic 
foundation of his church. Dannhauer remarked cor- 
rectly that in following Calixtus, the Lutheran Church 
would have to cease praising Luther and his reformation 
and apologize for the schism that had been caused in 
Protestantism. Even Baur 43 felt constrained to remark, 
that from the standpoint of Calixtus and in consistency 
with his theories the Reformation needed not to have 
taken place. Characteristic of his position was the an- 
swer he gave to prince Anton Ulrich of Brunswick, who 
had asked him whether a Protestant princess could 
marry with good conscience a Roman Catholic king. He 
answered as follows: (1) The Roman Catholic Church 
does not err in the foundation of faith and in the matter 
of salvation. (2) Consequently the changing of one's 
church relationship from Protestantism to Roman Ca- 
tholicism is permissible. 44 

6. Humanism. 

The humanistic trait in Calixtus had much to do with 
his more liberal views in dealing with denominational 
problems. Baur also made the remark that Calixtus fa- 
vored a development from the purely Christian to the 
generally human ("Er lenkte von der Religion zu dem 
allgemein Menschlichen.") Here, perhaps, was the real 
root of his conflict with Lutheranism. In the introduc- 



42 Third edition by Hauck, III, p. 647, 30n\ 

43 History of the Christian Church IV. 

44 Meusel, Kirchl. Handlexikon I, 6341. Cf Schmid, pp. 200, 209= 



103 



tion to this chapter we have acknowledged that human- 
ism could have had a beneficial influence upon the seven- 
teenth century Lutherans. We had reference, however, 
only to form, method, temper. Humanism makes the 
theologian freer, more scientific, and helps him to draw 
lessons from history and psychology. But humanism 
also inclines to a criticism of the foundations. The hand 
of God in history is ignored. The Reformation is looked 
upon as a misdevelopment. Ad. Harnack, for instance, 
views the history of dogma as issuing in the dissolution 
of dogmas. The significance of the Reformation is 
limited to a negative attitude to Rome. The differences 
between the Reformers are merely theological opinions. 
Augsburg Confession, Consensus Tigurinus, Formula of 
Concord, Synod of Dort, Westminster Confession are out- 
side of the history of the dogma. It is not difficult to de- 
tect the relation between such views of modern liberal- 
ism and the theories of Calixtus. He was the father of 
modern theology, not only in the union problem, but in 
numerous other respects. His principles found no gen- 
eral following until after his time. But in these princi- 
ples we have the beginning of the many and various sug- 
gestions for a new construction of Christianity, that have 
been heard since the age of rationalism. 

IV. THE POLEMICAL ACTIVITY OF THE LUTHERANS. 

1. The Ciwrge of Syncretism. 

Especially since the colloquy at Thorn (1645) the term 
"syncretism" came into frequent use as a charge against 
Calixtus and his followers. The term was chosen to stig- 
matize the endeavor of mixing into one Church the op- 
posing confessions of faith. The term was derived from 
vvyKepdwfu, to mix together. In preceding ages the term 
had had a different meaning. It suggested the practice 
of the old Cretans of whom Plutarch told in his little 
writing on Philadelphia that, while they were usually at 
war with each other, they always united against a com- 



104 

mon foe. It was in this sense that Zwingli, Bucer and 
Melanchthon had suggested a o-vyKp^rio-^ov or the forma- 
tion of a united front against Rome even if a full doctri- 
nal union could not be realized. 45 But in the seventeenth 
century the term received the above mentioned meaning. 
The polemics between Lutherans and Reformed was 
much revived about the time of the Westphalian Peace 
Treaty of 1648. The Reformed, through their chief rep- 
resentative, Frederick William I, of Brandenburg, de- 
manded to be put on a basis of equality with the Luth- 
erans by being acknowledged as adherents of the Augs- 
burg Confession. 46 To this, electoral Saxony was bit- 
terly opposed. In 1645 the Wittenberg University pub- 
lished two theological opinions against the "Syncretis- 
mus diversarum religionum," 47 referring to the following 
passages of Scripture: I Cor. 6:15-15; Rev. 3:15-16; 
Eph. 4:5-6. Dannhauer, in his "Mystery of a discovered 
Syncretism" (1648) wrote a kind of history of Syncre- 
tism. Here he described as syncretism any kind of a 
mixture of truth and error, tracing it in the relation be- 
tween Eve and the serpent, between the sons of Jehovah 
and the daughters of men (Gen. 6), between the Israel- 
ites and the Egyptians and followed it up to Melanch- 
thon, Grotius and Calixtus. 48 In the many writings of 
Abr. Calovius, finally, the term came to have exclusive 
reference to an objectionable approach between Luth- 
erans and Reformed, that is to an attempt of mixing to- 
gether the fundamentally different doctrines of these two 
churches. Paul Gerhardt wrote: "They want us to 
agree to a syncretism such as the Rintelers conceded to 
the Marburgers. So they plan gradually to dispose our 

45 Zwinglii Opp. ed. Schueler, VII, 390; VIII, 577. Corp. Ref. 
I, 917. C. Schmidt, Melancththon, p. 655. Hering Unionsver- 
suche I, 64ft., 283ft. R. E. XIX, 240, 241, 16. Meusel VI, 529*- 
LutheranCyclopedia, 474- 

46 Wangemann, Una Sancta, I, 1 book, 133-36. Stahl, Luth. 
Kirche und Union 470. Meiern, Westphal-Friedensverhandlun- 
gen VI, 275. R- E. XIX, 242ft., 246, 28ff. 

47 R. E. XIX, 246, 15. 

48 R. E. XIX, 242, 27ft. Schmid, pp. 288-92. 



105 

people to embrace the Reformed religion. 49 The testi- 
mony of the Lutherans against such an undertaking was 
so strong and so persistent that the term "Syncretist" 
(Suendechrist) came to carry with itself a blame, of 
which no one wanted to be guilty, not even Calixtus him- 
self. 50 Paul Gerhardt wrote in his last will and testa- 
ment to his son : "Be earful to study the sacred theology 
at pure schools and in unadulterated universities, and 
beware of syncretists, for they seek the things of this 
world and are neither true to God or man." 51 

2. Jena Versus Wittenberg. 

It has been emphasized again and again that Luther- 
anism cannot agree to a clear cut separation between re- 
ligion and theology, especially not after the suggestions 
of Calixtus. But it has also been indicated that the 
seventeenth century Lutherans had lost themselves in 
an intellectualism which ignored entirely the necessary 
distinction between confessional substance and matters 
that are purely theologumena. Here Wittenberg had 
been leading. The real defect in the position of the Wit- 
tenberg University came into light in an abortive con- 
fession, composed and proposed by Abr. Calovius. It 
was his "Consensus Repetitus," etc., of 1664. 52 This new 
symbol against syncretism went far beyond the Formula 
of Concord in rendering decisions on theological prob- 
lems. Following the order of the Augsburg Confession, 
we have in eighty-eight sections always first the true doc- 
trine, introduced by a profitemur; then follows with a 
rejicimus the rejected error; finally there was a proof 
quotation from the writings of the Helmstedters (Calix- 
tus, Hornejus, Latermann, Dreier). Among the things 
rejected as downright heresies are the following: that 

49 Langbecker, Paul Gerhardt, 23ff. 

50 Cf. R. E. XIX, 242, soff., 246, 15. 

51 Langbecker, p. 229; cf. Lutheran Quarterly, 1007, p. 376. 

52 As to full title and related matters see Schmid, p. 367. Meu- 
sel, II, 20. R. E. XIX, 248, 53ff-; 254, Siff. Schaff, Creeds I, 351. 



106 



the article of the Trinity is not clearly revealed in the 
Old Testament, and that the believers of the Old Testa- 
ment should not have known this doctrine ; that the Angel 
of Jehovah is not Christ; that the Old Testament believ- 
ers did not know and believe the doctrine of Christ's per- 
son and office ; that even outside of the sacrament Christ 
is not bodily present with all believers ; that Creatianism 
is not a heresy; that the existence of God needs not be 
proved by theology; that newly born children have no 
real faith ; that John 6 speaks of the Lord's Supper ; that 
Romanists and Calvinists can belong to the true Church ; 
that they can have a hope of salvation and are not to be 
condemned to eternal death. Consent to these matters 
was required for church fellowship. It was the inten- 
tion to place the Helmstedters outside of the Lutheran 
Church. Calovius published one work after the other to 
prepare the Church for an adoption of his symbol. 

But Wittenberg did no longer truly represent the Lu- 
theran Church. John Musaeus with the faculty of the 
Jena University stepped in as a regulating factor and did 
a valuable service to Lutheranism. He criticised the 
Wittenberg theologians that in their controversy against 
Calixtus they had not sufficiently distinguished between 
necessary articles of faith and matters in which salve 
fide et caritate there may be disagreement. He de- 
manded the recognition of "open questions." A charac- 
teristic passage may here be quoted: "In the detailed 
and thorough discussion of necessary articles of faith, in 
the interpretation of difficult passages of Scripture, in 
the dealing with philosophical questions relative to their 
bearing upon necessary articles of faith, in the method 
of polemics and in like matters even orthodox and doc- 
trinally pure theologians cannot always be expected to 
agree. This is especially true of the men at high schools, 
for they have not been called to lecture before their au- 
diences without further thought of what they have 
learned of their teachers or read of other theologians; 
but they are to consider carefully special difficulties and 
should aim as much as possible to elucidate and to inter- 



107 



pret. If this be done, then it cannot be otherwise but 
that sometimes there will be dissensions in the manner 
of teaching, in formulating and defending the doctrines 
of faith," etc. Estimating the theological situation, at- 
tention was called to the fact that in matters of knowl- 
edge convictions mature gradually and that frequently 
many have to render their contribution before the full 
truth is seen. For such ventilation of thought it was 
said, there must be toleration in the Church. Progress 
should not be barred by too much insistence upon con- 
formity in detail. The Jena theologians were far from 
agreeing with Calixtus in his manner of distinguishing 
between fundamentals and non-fundamentals. Here they 
were in entire harmony with Wittenberg. To the honor 
even of seventeenth century Lutherans it can be reported 
that the Consensus Repetitus was never adopted. The 
large work of Calovius, his Historia Syncretistica, was 
also practically confiscated by the government of Luth- 
eran Saxony. 53 

3. The Severity of Polemics. 

The severity of polemics has done much to discredit 
the cause of the Lutherans against Calixtus. The Re- 
formed and the Calixtianians were by no means innocent 
in this respect. 54 Yet history shows it to be a fact that 
the polemics of the Lutherans was very severe. It had 
been so in the controversies in the closing decades of the 
sixteenth century. We need only to recall a figure like 
Hesshusius. A like spirit can be seen at the University 
of Wittenberg and among the Lutheran theologians of the 
seventeenth century in general. 

53 R. E. XIX, 261, 5ff. For literature on the whole subject see 
Schmid, 377ft. Gass, Georg Calixtus, 112. Tschackert in R. E. 
XIX, 248, 46ff. "Der Jenischen Theologen ausfuehrlice Erklae- 
rung, (1677), printed in Calovius, Historia Syncretistica 1685, pp. 
ioooff. Kunze on Musaeus in R. E. XIII, 576ff. 

54 Hering II, 138, 71. R. E. XIX, 260, 5ff. Kawerau; Moeller's 
Kirchengeschichte III, 311; at numerous places in Wangemann, 
Una Sancta. To be fair it should be remembered that the Re- 
formed had less occasion for bitter polemics than had the Luth- 
erans, because they invaded their territory and, as a rule, had the 
princes on their side, who protected their interests. 



108 



The chief explanation is to be sought in the Lutheran 
Church's valuation of doctrine. To Luther and his co- 
laborers pure doctrine was the foundation and the 
source of the Christian life. And it was their conviction 
that a little leaven of error leaveneth the whole lump. 
Therefore they watched jealously over the purity of doc- 
trine. This is the attitude of historical Lutheranism of 
to-day. But in judging the responsibility of the indi- 
viduals as members of other churches the Lutherans of 
to-day do not speak as did the sixteenth and seventeenth 
century Lutherans. Having studied the history of 
dogma with a careful regard to cause and effect in the 
dealing of the human mind with Scripture truth, present- 
day Lutheran theologians have no difficulty in under- 
standing that at the time of the Reformation there should 
have been exponents of a spiritualism which had its rep- 
resentatives all through the history of the Christian 
Church. 55 The old Lutherans could see in the departure 
of Zwingli and Calvin and in the adherence to their views 
by their followers nothing but a willful rejection of plain 
truth. Their psychology was defective as we have tried 
to point out (see above in this chapter, III, 1, c) . 

The seventeenth century Lutherans looked upon Cal- 
vinism as their real foe. This may have its explanation 
to some extent in the aggressive policy of the Reformed 
against the Lutherans (cf. pp. 25-28; 36-40; especially 
51-52), and in the methods of their propaganda, but the 
chief explanation lies in the fact that they looked upon 
Calvinism as the embodiment of exceptionally dangerous 
errors, particularly regarding the means of grace. Hoe 
von Hoenegg, court preacher at Dresden, advised his elec- 
tor to make common cause with the Roman Catholic em- 
peror before .giving assistance to the Reformed prince of 
the Palatinate. Polykarp Leyser declared in a special 
publication that the Lutherans would sooner co-operate 

55 As Luther chose to follow the Scriptural realism and mys- 
ticism of an Irenaeus and related theologians, so Zwingli, Bul- 
linger, Bucer and Calvin followed the spiritualism of Origen and 
Berengar with its emphasis upon what appears rational. 



109 



with the Romanists than with the Reformed. 56 Great 
absurdities were natural in that age. For instance, a 
man like Hoenegg could publish a book under the title: 
"Evident Proof that in Ninety-nine Points the Calvin- 
ists Are in Agreement with the Arians and Turks." One 
would think that such voices could be nothing but erup- 
tions of utterly dried up theologians, but then we read 
that men of deepest personal piety, such as Ph. Nicolai, 
the singer of "Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme," E. Neu- 
meister, author of "Jesus nimmt die Suender an" and 
even Paul Gerhardt, the nightingale of German Protes- 
tantism, expressed themselves in hardest terms against 
the Reformed, even questioning their chances for salva- 
tion. 57 

After the works of Tholuck 58 it came to be the general 
opinion that Calovius, Dannhauer, Huelsemann et al. had 
been questionable characters, utterly devoid of spiritual 
life. But now we find that the 3rd edition of the R. E. 
presents an altogether different appreciation of these 
men. J. Kunze, in his article on Abr. Calovius, remarks : 
"Tholuck's judgment betrays the narrow position of the 
pietistic-unionistic school." 59 Those men were men of 
their age, of course. The spirit of their polemics cannot 
be commended and would be impossible to-day. It bears 
the stamp of the demoralization characteristic to an age 
that was passing through the Thirty Year's War. But 
the remark of Tschackert is correct when he says of 
those theologians: "In the rough hull of their ortho- 
doxy they preserved the religious contents of the Refor- 
mation and handed it to posterity." 60 

56 Hering, Unionsversuche I, 265. 

57 See Kahnis, Der Innere Gang des deutschen Protestantis- 
mus I, 83. Hering II, 350ft". Langbecker, Paul Gerhardt. 

58 "Geist der luth. Theologen Wittenbergs," 1852; "Das kirchl. 
Leben des Siebzehnten Jahrhunderts," 186 1 ; his articles in the sec- 
ond edition of the Realencyklopaedie. 

59 R. E. Ill, 653, 24. Cf. Meusel. 

60 R. E. Ill, 647, 28. Cf. Kirn on Melanchthon in R. E. XII, 
537, iff. 



110 



CHAPTER V. 

THE PRUSSIAN CHURCH UNION. 

Literature: Rudelbach, Reformation, Luthertum undf 
Union, pp. 608ff. Stahl, Lutherische Kirche und Union, 
pp. 468ff. Wangemann, Sieben Buecher Preussischer 
Kirchengeschichte, 1859. Again Wangemann, Una Sancta, 
1884. (Kirchliche Kabinettspolitik, vol. II, book 3; 
Drei Preussische Dragonaden, II, book 2; Die Preus- 
sische Union in ihrem Verhaeltnis zur Una Sancta, 
vol. I, book 6). Brandes, Geschichte der kirchlichen 
Politik des Hauses Brandenburg I, 382ff. Scheibel, 
Aktenmaessige Geschichte der neuesten Unternehmung 
einer Union, 1834. Jul. Mueller, Die Evangelische 
Union, 1845. Nitzsch, Urkundenbuch der Evange- 
lischen Union, 1853. W. Hoffmann, Deutschland Einst 
und Jetzt im Lichte des Reiches Gottes, 1868. Rieker, 
Die Rechtliche Stellung der Evangelischen Kirche in 
Deutschland. Kurtz, Church History (Engl. 1888), 
§193, 3. (German ed. 1906, §180, 1). /. Gensichen, 
Denkschrift zum 50jaehr. Jubilaeum der Lutherischen 
Vereine, 1899. Denkschrift des Evangelischen Ober- 
kichenrats (at its fiftieth anniversary), 1900. Ameri- 
can Lutheran Survey, June 5, 1918. Beyschlag, Deutsch- 
Evangelische Blaetter, 1900. The following articles in 
Hauck, Realencyklopaedie (R. E.) have been used: "Cor- 
pus Evangelicorum ,, by Friedberg (IV, 298ff.) ; "Synkre- 
tistische Streitigkeiten" by Tschackert (XIX, 243ff) ; 
"Pfaff" by Preuschen (XV, 234ff.) ; "Union" by Hauck 
(XX, 253ff.) ; "Separierte Lutheraner" by Froboess 
(XXI, Iff.) ; "Scheibel" by Froeboess (XVII, 547ff.) ; 
"W. Hoffmann" by Koegel (VIII, 227f.) ; "Katechismen" 
by Chors (X, 130ff.) Meusel, Kirchliches Handlexikon 



Ill 



on "Union" (VII, 4ff.) ; "Wangemann" (VII, 170) ; "Lu- 
therischer Verein" (VII, 379ff.). "Lutheran Cyclope- 
dia" (Jacobs and Haas) on "Prussian Union" by Mohl- 
denke (pp. 525f.) ; on "Grabau" (p. 203). 

In chapters I, III, and IV, we have made ourselves 
witnesses of many and persisting efforts to bring about a 
union between Lutherans and Reformed. Not a stone 
was left unturned in these endeavors. As a brief review 
we refer to Bucer with his inexhaustible optimism and di- 
plomacy (p. 7ff.) ; to Luther as he for a number of years 
literally forced himself into an attitude of persevering 
ironies in order to remove the schism (p. 12ff.) ; to Me- 
lanchthon with his mediating formulas (p. 40ff.) ; to the 
various proposals for a union by the Reformed (p. 55ff.) ; 
to the literary activity of George Calixtus (chapter IV) ; 
to the life work of John Dury (p. 77ff.) ; to the Leipzig 
Conference of 1631 (p. 56ff.) But all these efforts did 
not bring the Union. It became evident the longer the 
more that the historically developed division could not be 
overcome. The two churches, each established upon dif- 
ferent principles, had created their own theology and 
their own life. (See our remarks on page 61f.) * 

What had been found to be impossible in the time of 
these movements seemed to become a reality in the nine- 
teenth century when in 1817 the Prussian Church Union 
was proclaimed. The historical development of this 
Union, however, revealed the fact that even in this move- 
ment a real union of the two churches of Protestantism 
had not been found ; that it was only a mechanical union, 
or a confederation of a Lutheran and a Reformed Church 
under a state church government. Related movements 
in other dominions of Germany show more of an ap- 
proach to the absorptive union, but that was because 
there the historical Lutheran Church had already been 
pressed out of existence in a preceding age as was re- 
lated, p. 36ff. 

*The quotation of these pages has reference to the separate 
publication of this series of articles, which will appear after a 
seventh chapter has been printed. 



112 



I. PREPARATORY DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PRUSSIAN CHURCH 

UNION. 

Broadly speaking we may say that the Prussian Church 
Union was chiefly the result of three factors: (1) the 
change of thought that came with the age of rationalism ; 
(2) the passing sentiment of a revived pietism; and (3) 
the state church policy of the Hohenzollerns, which was 
the organizing factor. 

Elector Sigismund, after his conversion to the Re- 
formed Church (1613), had tried to make his Lutheran 
subjects mildly Reformed. In this he had failed (p. 
38ff. ; cf. 70ff.) But his successors followed the policy 
of equalizing the confessional and practical differences 
of the two churches through all kinds of union measures. 
We refer especially to Elector Frederick William I and 
his conflict with Paul Gerhardt (p. 71ff.) The first 
kings of Prussia were active in the same direction. 1 ' 
Prussia was aspiring to the protectorate and leadership 
of German Protestantism and to take the place which 
Saxony had held in the Corpus Evangelicorum. 2 In 1701 
the son of Elector Frederick William I was crowned at 
Koenigsberg as Frederick I, the first king of Prussia. 
The Hohenzollerns were fast approaching the time when 
their aspiration to the national and political leadership 
in Germany was no longer a dream. A united Protest- 
antism was an important factor in welding the many 
States of Germany into a united empire. Propositions 
for a Protestant Union were part of the policy of Prus- 
sia's first king. 3 The view of the Hohenzollerns was 
upon a union of German Protestantism in and outside of 
Prussia. Even as early as the years following 1717, the 
second centennial of the Reformation, the second king of 



1 Stahl, Luth. Kirche und Union, p. 472. 

2 See Friedberg in R. E. IV, 209, 23, 38. Cf. Tschackert in R. E. 
XIX, 246, 28-45. American Lutheran Survey, June 5, 1918, p. 202. 

3 Cf. F. Brandes, Geschichte der kirchlichen Politik des HauSes 
Brandenburg I, 383!?. See also the very interesting remarks of 
Hauck in R. E. XX, 256, 43-46. Cf. Tschackert in R. E. XIX, 249, 
35ff- 



113 



Prussia, Frederick William I (father of Frederick the 
Great) would have liked to consummate the union of the 
two churches. His helping hand was Count Metternich, 
who drew up fifteen points as a basis for the union. 4 He 
was supported by C.M.Pfaff at the Tuebingen University, 
whose appeal for a union in 1720 ("Friedfertige An- 
rede," etc.), attracted considerable attention. 5 Even the 
Corpus Evangelicorum with its seat in Regensburg, the 
highest authority in church matters touching the inter- 
ests of all the Protestant states, was in favor of it. Leib- 
niz had given out the word that Luther and Calvin both 
were right; Luther's Real Presence, he said, has its re- 
ality in the spiritual power proceding from the Body of 
Christ at the right hand of God. According to this in- 
terpretation Calvin had the correct definition. But noth- 
ing came of the endeavors at this time. The Lutheran 
clergy were generally opposed to the union. 6 The book 
of E. S. Cyprian, "Abgedrungener Untericht von kirch- 
licher Vereinigung," etc., 1722, is of special interest here. 
His warning reminds us of the protest of Claus Harms 
little less than a century later. 7 Cyprian wrote under 
the protection of Prince Frederick II of Weimar-Meinin- 
gen, who befriended him. The king of Prussia de- 
manded that his voice be silenced. Frederick William 
III, under whom finally (1817) the Union was pro- 
claimed, began to work for that end at an early time of 
his reign. In the outgoing decade of the eighteenth cen- 
tury, at the appeal of his court preacher Dr. Sack (in his 
"Promemoria" of 1798), he appointed a commission for 
the creation of a common liturgy. The French revolu- 
tion and the Napoleonic wars then absorbed the interest 
so that nothing was done for a number of years. 

The Hohenzolleras were favored in their union policy 
by the spirit of the age, which changed fundamentally 
when the storm of rationalism made tabula rasa with the 



4 R. E. IV, 366, 31. 

5 See Preuschen in R. E. XV, 236, 34ft. 

6 Hauck in R. E. XX, 25s, 16. 

7 See R. E. IV, 366, 20, soff. 



114 



faith of the Church. True, the supernaturalists emerged. 
But most of these could not sufficiently rid themselves of 
rationalistic influences. To this class belonged also Dr. 
Sack as can be seen from his "Promemoria." 8 Provost 
Teller, of Berlin, a member of the king's commission, was 
an outright rationalist. He declared publicly: "Because 
of their faith in God, virtue and immortality, the Jews 
ought to be regarded as genuine Christians." 9 The gen- 
eral literature was pervaded by a spirit of Hellenism and 
heathenism, as can be seen from the writings of Goethe, 
Schiller and others of the German classics. Kant was a 
great thinker, but with all his emphasis upon conscience 
and moralism he ignored the essentials of religion. In 
such a time appreciation of the Church's confessions 
could not be expected. Schleiermacher, in his writing of 
1804, 10 regarded the confessional division of Protestant- 
ism as a result of the stubbornness of the Reformers and 
as an outright misdevelopment of history. Certainly, 
the union of these "sister churches" at least seemed nat- 
ural in an age when the thought of the cultured was 
upon a world-religion based upon the belief in God, vir- 
tue and immortality. 11 

We are told that the Christians, the pietists of that 
day, were the supporters of the union idea. This is true. 
But their influence, at first, was not strong, and there- 
fore they did not originate the movement. They existed 
as "die Stillen im Lande." They represented the faith 
of individuals, which under the devastations of rational- 
ism had sought refuge in the heart. 12 This faith of in- 
dividuals — such as Gerhard Tersteegen, for instance — 
had lost sight of congregation and Church. They were 
souls like Mary whose interest was centered solely upon 

8 Printed by Wangemann in his "Sieben Buecher preussischer 
Kirchengeschichte" I, pp. 1-8. 

9 Kurtz, Church History, Engl, ed., 1888, §171, 4- 

10 "Zwei unvorgreifliche Gutachten in Sachen des protestanti- 
schen Kirchenwesens, zunaechst in Beziehung auf den preussis- 
chen Staat." 

11 Cf. Hauck, R. E. XX, p. 254, 5off. 

12 Rudelbach, Reformation, Luthertum und Union, p. 615: *T>er 
Glaube fluechtete sich in die Herzen der einzelnen Befceaaer." 



115 

"the one thing that is needful." 13 True, after the tribu- 
lation of the Napoleonic wars many of the cultured also 
found their way back to a positive faith in a living per- 
sonal God and in Christ as the mediator for man's Sal- 
vation. This growing revival was at first in no wise 
confessional in character, but purely Biblical. The 
Christians of all churches, including the Roman Catholic, 
joined hands as if they were one communion of believers. 
But the mistake of those that advocated the Union on the 
basis of this religious enthusiasm consisted in this, that 
they regarded a merely passing sentiment for union as 
something permanent. Very soon the time came when 
these Biblicists or new pietists felt the need of linking up 
their religious experiences with the confessional experi- 
ence of the historic Church. 14 Then it was found that 
confessional convictions after all have their rightful place 
in the life of the Church. For an interesting parallel in 
history we refer to the period of the so-called "American 
Lutheranism" in our own country. It was pietistic and 
it distrusted the historic development of the Church with 
its confessions. Dr. Charles Porterfield Krauth re- 
marks: "It mistook a tendency half developed for a final 
result." 15 Both the rationalistic and the pietistic factor 
combined to aid the king in his gradually developing plan 
to consummate the Union at the coming three-hundredth 
anniversary of the Reformation. 

Preparatory in nature was also a step that was taken 
in 1808 when the king dissolved the upper-consistory to- 
gether with the provincial consistory (both creations of 
Frederick the Great in 1750) and the government of the 
Church was taken over by a department of the State 
(Kultusministerium). So the king who was the head of 
this department became the highest bishop of the church 
(summus episcoptcs) . This was the final legalization of 
a condition of caesareopapism under which Lutheranism 

13 Cf. Stahl, p. 473. 

14 Hauck, R. E. XX, p. 256, 10 ; p. 255, iff. 

15 Spaeth, Charles Porterfield Krauth II, p. 85. Cf. Neve, Brief 
History of the Luth. Church in America, 2nd ed., p. 128. 



116 

has suffered unspeakably. The pope in Rome had never 
more power over his church than was now vested in the 
hands of the Reformed king of Prussia as bishop of the 
Lutheran Church in his domain. 

King Frederick William III was a man of personal 
piety, with a personal interest in the Church, and it 
should not be left unstated that in the Union which he 
proclaimed in 1817 he meant to promote the spiritual 
welfare of his people. But that the political motive was 
not a secondary consideration can easily be seen in the 
historical perspective. The Vienna Congress in 1815 
had been engaged in a reconstruction of Europe leaving 
a strong Prussia with Westphalia, the Rhine Province, 
the Province of Saxony, Posen and the Island of Ruegen 
as new accessions while all the thirty-eight German 
States had united into a German federation. Now the de- 
sire for a union of German Protestantism was stronger 
than ever before. Hauck in his article on the "Union" 
in R. E. has a very characteristic remark when he says 
that in cultivating the Union idea it was one of the ob- 
jects of the State "to gather up the strength of Protest- 
antism in the empire." 16 German Protestantism was to 
be used for political purposes. 

II. THE PROCLAMATION OF THE UNION AND THE FIRST 
STAGE OF ITS DEVELOPMENT. 

In that historical proclamation of the Union at the 
third anniversary of the Reformation in 1817 the king 
declared in his famous decree (Kabinettsordre) that the 
Reformed Church was not to become Lutheran, nor the 
Lutheran to become Reformed, but that both were to con- 



16 R. E. XX, p. 256, 45: "Der Wunsch, die religioese Spaltung 
ihrer Untertanen zu beseitigen, die Kraft der Evangelischen im 
Reiche zusammenzufassen ,machte die Hohenzollern zu Traegern 
und Foerderern der Idee der Union. Cf. Hoffmann, the most influ- 
ential man in the Evang. Oberkirchenrat from 1852 to 1873, in his 
book "Deutschland Einst und Jetzt im Lichte des Reiches Gottes." 
P- 494- 



117 

stitute "a renewed Evangelical Christian Church." The 
confessional basis of this church was to be "the principal 
points in Christianity, wherein both churches agree" 
(consensus) ; the doctrines of disagreement, on the other 
hand (dissensus) were to be considered as "non-essen- 
tial" and to be left to the private conviction and liberty of 
the individual ; in other words, they were to be eliminated 
from the Church as such. 17 We see, it was a real absorp- 
tive union that the king was planning. The object of 
his creation was to be an "Evangelical Christian Church" 
on the basis of a distinction between fundamentals and 
non-fundamentals, or between faith and theology, much 
after the suggestion of George Calixtus as reviewed in 
chapter IV. 

The following measures constituted the program for 
the introduction of the Union as it was first contemplated 
by the king: (1) Both the Lutherans and the Reformed 
were placed under one and the same church government. 
This, however, had been done already in the year of 
1808, as has been reported. (2) The common order of 
service (Agenda), adapted to Lutherans and Reformed 
alike, the main work of which had been done by the king 
himself, was forced upon all congregations. In this or- 
der of service, it is true, large concessions had been made 
to the Lutheran liturgies of the sixteenth century, but in 
the doctrine of the sacraments the Lutheran teaching 
was not expressed and open communion was expected. 
(3) By the decree of 1823 the subscription to the Unal- 
tered Augsburg Confession and the Formula of Concord 
was nullified and ministers were called upon to subscribe 
only to the "confessional writings of the United Evan- 
gelical Church in so far as they agree with each other." 
Later, subscription was made to "the Confessions of our 



17 See the full text of the decree in Wangemann, "Kirchliche 
Kabinets-Politik" in Una Sancta II, 2nd book, pp. 249ff. Stahl, p. 
475; Rudelbach, p. 619. Meusel, Kirchl. Handlexikon VII, p. 6 
Lutheran Cyclopedia, p. 526. Hauck in R. E. XX, 256, 56. 



118 

Evangelical Church." Still later, in response to demands 
of the Lutherans, the Augsburg Confession of 1530 was 
mentioned when ordination took place in a Lutheran con- 
gregation. This latter arrangement, however, marks 
the change from an absorptive to a confederative union, 
of which we shall treat in the next section. (4) In the 
year 1822 it was declared that those candidates for the 
ministry who should subscribe to the so-called "Unions- 
revers" (a written promise, at their examination, to sub- 
mit to the Union arrangements), were to receive ap- 
pointment with Lutheran as well as Reformed congrega- 
tions. Later, 1830, without considering such a written 
"Revers," it was determined that pastorates of the State 
Church should be supplied with Lutheran and Reformed 
pastors indiscriminately, provided that the congregations 
would not raise objection. (5) In the city of Bonn a 
theological faculty was constituted on the Union princi- 
ple. (6) The organization of "mixed congregations 
which would constitute themselves on the consensus of 
the confessions of both churches" was everywhere en- 
couraged. (7) The "General-Superintendents" and the 
"Superintendents" received instructions to see to it that 
the congregations would give up their distinguishing 
names, "Lutherans" and "Reformed," and simply call 
themselves "Evangelisch." (8) The breaking of the 
bread at the communion was made the outward sign of 
having adopted the Union. 18 

At first, it seemed that there was general approval, or r 
at least, no opposition to the Union. The indefiniteness 
and abstract character of the king's decree appealed to 
the spirit of the age. The ministers of Berlin. Lutheran 
and Reformed, responded by assembling in a Lutheran 
church to receive the Lord's Supper under the symbol of 
breaking the bread and by using the words : "Christ, our 

18 Cf. Stahl pp. 478f. Meusel VII, p. 6. 



119 



Lord, said: Take and eat," etc. 19 The theological faculty 
of the university met in a Reformed church and received 
the communion in the same manner. In both cases the 
congregations had not been invited. Schleiermacher, as 
president of the Berlin Synod, published an official ex- 
planation in which he stated that the celebration of the 
Lord's Supper had been intended as an expression of a 
church-fellowship without a doctrinal union, and he pre- 
dicted that the higher life in this new relation would 
manifest itself in a stronger emphasis upon the distin- 
guishing doctrines. 20 This was certainly a strange ex- 
pectation as coming from an advocate of the Union such 
as Schleiermacher. It did come true, however, later un- 
der a strong Lutheran reaction of which we shall hear in 
the following section. But then it was to be crushed by 
the Union authorities. One reason, perhaps, why there 
was no noticeable opposition at this time was that with 
the proclamation in 1817 the assurance was given that no 
congregation should be forced to join the Union. At 
first, the congregations remained unmolested. Even the 
common service book (Agenda) was at first only recom- 
mended. Trouble came as soon as this order of service, 
the symbol of the Union, was made obligatory for all con- 
gregations. 

A number of other principalities and several cities fol- 
lowed Prussia in introducing the Union. They were the 
Palatinate on the Rhine, Grand Duchy of Hesse, Anhalt, 
Waldeck, Baden, Hanau, Fulda, Bernburg, Dessau, Koe- 
then. In each case the preparatory work had been done 
by the princes with the aid of Melanchthonian formulas 
and as a rule with the Variata (cf. p. 42f.) 

19 This merely reciting form of distribution, which was to sug- 
gest to the communicant the liberty of interpreting Christ's words 
as he pleases, was recommended by Prof. Marheinecke in a little 
writing: "Das Brot im heiligen Abendmahl." It became the shib- 
boleth of the Union, to which the Lutherans later opposed, as a 
public profession, the words : "This is the true Body," etc. The 
English Lutheran Church of America, with a history different 
from that of the Lutheran Church in Germany has not followed 
that practice, but uses the words : "This is the Body of Christ," 
etc. 

20 Cf. Rudelbach, pp. 622L 



120 

III. THE REACTION. 

Generally speaking, there was no confessional consci- 
ousness when the Union was announced. Yet a few 
voices were heard from outside of Prussia. At Leipzig, 
Prof. J. A. Tittmann replied to Schleiermacher (1818) 
predicting that nothing good would come out of the 
Union. 21 A very strong testimony came from Pastor 
Claus Harms in Kiel in his famous "Ninety-five Theses" 
which he published for the third anniversary of the Re- 
formation. In the seventy-fifth of these he declared pro- 
phetically: "Through a marriage the poor maid, the 
Lutheran Church, is to be made rich. Do not perform 
this ceremony over the bones of Luther. They will be- 
come alive, and then woe unto you !" This prophesy soon 
saw its fulfillment. 

The tercentenary anniversary of the delivery of Augs- 
burg Confession (25th of June, 1830) was approaching. 
King Frederick William III was planning to make this an- 
niversary the occasion for a large forward step in the in- 
troduction of the Union. 22 The obligatory use of the 
Agenda had already been ordered. In a special decree 
of April 30, 1830, the king demanded that the church au- 
thorities should see to it that as a symbolic expression of 
joining the Union the rite of breaking the bread in the 
communion be introduced and that the designation of the 
two churches as "Lutheran" or "Reformed" be aban- 
doned. 23 On the basis of this decree the General Super- 
intendent in Breslau (capital of Silesia) recommended to 
the clergy of his district that on the anniversary of the 
delivery of the Augsburg Confession the communion be 
received in accordance with the decree of the king. 24 
Scheibel, professor at the University of Breslau, and pas- 

21 See Rudelbach, p. 624. 

22 See Froboess in R. E. XII, p. 2, soff. 

23 See the text of the decree in Wangemann, "Preussische 
Kabinets-Politik," in Una Sancta II, book 2, p. 311, cf. p. 313. 

24 Froboess, R. E. XII, p. 2, 53ff. 



121 



tor at the Elizabeth Church in that city, 25 who had al- 
ready written against the Union, 26 protested for himself 
and a part of his congregation and even appealed to the 
king. But his petition was refused, and he, together 
with another minister, was temporarily suspended from 
office. This was the beginning of a separatistic Luth- 
eran movement which in the end resulted in an independ- 
ent Lutheran Church in Prussia. Several hundred mem- 
bers of the congregation rallied about Scheibel, among 
them Prof. Steffens, the rector of the university, and 
Huschke, a professor of jurisprudence who was at home 
in the problems of theology as he was in the science of 
law. 27 Petition after petition was sent to Berlin. By 
the end of August, the followers of Scheibel had increased 
to over one thousand. They refused the king's Agenda 
which, to them, was in a special sense the symbol of the 
Union. The demand was for an independent Lutheran 
Church in which ministers and congregations could live 
and testify according to the confessions of this church. 28 
But all petitions were in vain. Meanwhile the movement 
spread into the neighboring provinces, Missionaries of a 
revived Lutheranism visited the congregations in Silesia, 
Saxony, Brandenburg, Pommerania and Posen, and en- 
lightened the congregations through speech and writings 
regarding the difference between the Lutheran Church 
and the Union. Many were prosecuted and suffered im- 
prisonment and fine, but such martyrdom brought fresh 
fuel to the awakened Lutheran consciousness. 29 Schei- 
bel, removed from his offices in the church and in the uni- 
versity and forbidden to preach and to write, soon (1832) 
retired from Breslau and took his abode in Dresden, the 

25 For a characterization of Scheibel see R. E. XVII, p. 551, 2off. 

26 R. E. XVII, p. 349,.ioff. 

2.7 Prof. Julius Stahl in Berlin, whose great work "Die Luther- 
ische Kirche und die Union" we have frequently quoted, was an- 
other man who combined the study of theology with his profes- 
sion of teaching on law. 

28 Froboess, R. E. XII, p. 3! 

29 See J. Gensichen, Denkschrift zum 50 jaehrigen Jubilaeuin 
der lutherischen Vereine. 1899. 



122 

capital of Saxony. 30 Now Huschke became the special 
leader of the movement. The king published the decree 
(Kabinetts-Ordre) of February 28, 1834, giving to the 
Union the character of a confederation. It was hoped 
that this would put a stop to the restlessness of the Bres- 
lauers and their sympathizers. But these were deter- 
mined to be satisfied with nothing less than a Lutheran 
government for the Lutheran Church. So, under date 
of April 4th, 1834, a number of ministers and candidates 
of theology and thirty-four congregational representa- 
tives appealed to the king to recognize them as an inde- 
pendent Lutheran church. The petition was flatly re- 
fused. To make further resistance impossible, a num- 
ber of laws were made: (1) against private religious 
meetings; (2) against the performing of ministerial acts 
by persons not ordained; (3) against parents refusing 
to send their children to the religious instruction of the 
state schools; (4) against ministers not using the king's 
Agenda. This was the program of the State for crush- 
ing the movement. The pastors, Berger, Biehler and 
Kellner were deposed from the ministry, because they 
insisted on using the Lutheran formulas for ministerial 
acts and they rejected the king's Agenda which was to 
them the symbol of the Union. On the basis of the afore- 
mentioned decrees a comprehensive system of police per- 
secutions was now inaugurated. Much has been written 
on both sides on the case at Hoenigern (Silesia) where 
a congregation of thousands resisted the introduction of 
the Agenda and was forced to yield to a strong military 
force. 31 We shall have occasion for a special discussion 
of this case later. After the event at Hoenigern, a con- 
siderable number of ministers with their congregations 
joined the opponents of the State. Among them was 

30 Here he wrote his two volumes "Aktenmaessige Geschichte 
der neuesten Unternehmung einer Union" (1834), which is recog- 
nized as the best source-book on the history of the Union up to 
the time of its publication. The writer had the use of this work 
through the kindness of the Union Theological Seminary li- 
brarian, but has preferred to give the references after Wange- 
mann who takes us up to 1884. 

31 See the detailed report in R. E. XII, p. 6, 8-30. 



123 

Guericke, professor of church history in Halle. All were 
deposed from the ministry. But they persisted in serv- 
ing their congregations. In the spring of 1835 they or- 
ganized themselves into a synod and made careful provi- 
sion for serving their scattered churches. Four candi- 
dates were ordained. Chased by the police, the ministers 
were hurrying from place to place, preaching and admin- 
istering the sacraments, mostly at night. When appre- 
hended they were imprisoned. When members of the 
congregations refused to disclose the names of ministers 
who had officiated they were punished with three months' 
imprisonment on water and bread. Many laymen in 
those days lost all their possessions through fines. The 
oppression was so persistent and reached such a degree 
of severity that in some congregations hope for a better 
day was given up and plans were matured for emigrat- 
ing. Some went to Australia, others came to America. 32 
The crown prince, later King Frederick William IV, was 
convinced of the wrongfulness of his father's policy and 
sought to intervene. 33 In 1840 King Frederick William 
III died. One of the first acts of his successor was to 
liberate the interned Lutheran ministers. In the follow- 
ing year, they organized themselves publicly as the 
"Oberkirchenkollegium," free from the State, with Pro- 
fessor Huschke as first president, and they were recog- 
nized by the State in 1845. 34 In 1913 this first Evangeli- 
cal Lutheran Free Church in Prussia comprised 59,817 
members, 86 pastors, 156 churches, 22 chapels and houses 
of prayer. 

After Wangemann's publication of the "Una Sancta" 
the advocates of the Union have criticized this Lutheran 
movement. It is said that it was nothing but plain re- 
bellion against the measures of a just king without a le- 
gitimate confessional motive. Wangemann contends 

32 R. E. XII, 6, 55ff. Meusel I, 104. With Wangemann's rep- 
resentation in Una Sancta I, book 3, p. in on "Grabau" compare 
the article by Grabau's son in the Lutheran Encyclopedia, p. 203. 

33 Cf. R. E. XII, p. 3off. ; p. 7, 6-27. 

34 R. E. XII, p. 7, 2 3 ff. 



124 

that the Lutheran character of the congregation at Hoe- 
nigern was in no wise threatened, because in the king's 
Agenda provision was made for Lutheran congregations 
preferring Lutheran forms of expression in the adminis- 
tration of the sacraments. In addition to that he charges 
the leaders of the movement, Scheibel, Huschke and their 
followers, with un-Lutheran and peculiar theories con- 
cerning the relation of Church and State, and he insists 
that it was for these theories that minister and congrega- 
tion stood in that conflict at Hoenigern. What is to be 
answered ? 

Wangemann in his "Una Sancta" 35 has a distinct merit 
for having published many documents bearing on the his- 
tory of the Union policy of the Hohenzollems, and many 
of his reflections in the Una Sancta are of a very instruc- 
tive nature. But Wangemann must be read with criti- 
cism. 36 He had removed to Berlin as president of a for- 
eign mission institute which depended upon the good will 
of the government and also upon the support of many 
circles that had settled down under the Union arrange- 
ment. 37 

As a guide for reading Wan°-emann on the Hoenigern 
case we call attention to the following: (1) Pastor Kell- 
ner, of the Hoenigern Church, was denosed from his 
charge because he and the congregation with him refused 
the king's Agenda. This was the real point of conten- 

35 This work of two volumes is not to be confounded with his 
"Sieben Buecher preussischer Kirchengeschichte." These books 
he wrote as an opponent of the Prussian Union. But later, he 
changed his position and became an advocate of the Union in its 
confederative form, defending the position of the Lutherans who 
wanted to remain in the state church against those that sepa- 
rated themselves. As an expression of this position and at the 
same time to correct various matters that he had written in the 
former work, he published the Una Sancta. 

36 See the article on "Wangemann" in Meusel VII, p. 170. 

37 See Una Sancta I, book 5, p. 403. As the Leipzig Foreign 
Mission Institute had become the rallving point of the separated 
Lutherans (R. E. XII, p. 8. 6ff.) so Wangemann's institution be- 
came the centre of the missionary activities of those Lutherans 
of Prussia, who remained in the Union, the "Lutheran Associa- 
tions." Cf. Meusel IV, p. 379. 



125 

turn. 3 * The State declaTed : Adoption of the Agenda does 
not mean the adoption of the Union. 39 But the Luther- 
ans could not help but see in the Agenda, not only the 
symbol of the Union, but even the instrument for its in- 
troduction. Prof. Hauck says : "The forms for prepara- 
tory service and communion were un-Lutheran, particu- 
larly the form of distribution failed to give satisfaction. 
While it did not contradict the Lutheran conception, 
neither did it give expression to it. And so the form 
seemed to be intended for the silent removal of the Lu- 
theran interpretation." 40 A special permission to cer- 
tain individual congregations to substitute more Luth- 
eran expressions could give no satisfaction to those that 
fought for the rights of the whole Lutheran Church in 
the country. It was at this time that the State was 
pressing the, Union in every possible way (introduction 
of the Reformed rite of breaking the bread, abandon- 
ment of the name "Lutheran," "Unionsrevers" at the or- 
dination of ministers, etc.) Decoration with the "red 
order of the eagle" was much used to invite yielding to 
the Union. And it must be said that in spite of all the 
assurances that adoption of the Agenda did not mean 
joining the Union the State itself did look upon the 
Agenda as a symbol and instrument of the Union. 41 
Hauck says that the king could not command the adop- 
tion of the Union (namely that Lutherans and Reformed 
should blend into one congregation, that Lutheran and 
Reformed congregations should establish themselves 
upon the consensus position), but as summits episcopus 
he could command the adoption of forms for worship and 
ministerial acts. To this Hauck adds the remark: "So 
it can easily be seen what significance the Agenda was 
bound to have for the introduction of the Union." We 
may say, the Agenda was the instrument for clinching 



8? See Wangemann, "Drei Preussische Dragonaden," Una 
Sancta II, book 2, pp. 13, 64. Cf. R. E. XII, p. 6, 8. 

39 R. E. XII, p. 2, 45- 

40 R. E. XX, p. 258, 26ft. 

41 Read Hauck in R. E. XXI, p. 257, 50; 258, 13-15. 



126 

the Union. 4 - As matters had developed, yielding' on the 
Agenda would have been the same as in Melanchthon's 
time the yielding to the interims. For a Ltfiheran con- 
science, the adoption of the Agenda was no adiapheron. 
Wangemann in his discussion has completely beclouded 
the issue. 43 (2) Again Wangemann has failed to repre- 
sent the situation correctly when he says that the pro- 
testing and appealing ministers stood merely for the pe- 
culiar theories of Scheibel and Huschke regarding the re- 
lation of Church and State. 44 Surely, the varying theo- 
ries of these men were not the practical point of dispute 
for the opponents of the Union. What they wanted was 
a guarantee for an unmolested existence of Lutheranism 
not only in the local congregation, but in the country. 
And while they stood in the fight the conviction was 
growing with them that the Church must be free from 
the State altogether. 45 To us in the Free Church of 
America the correctness of this position is so clear that 
it needs not to be argued. To illustrate only, we ask: 
Could the Presbyterian Church exist, grow, develop and 
fulfill its peculiar mission under a mixed government, 
dominated by influences bent upon its equalization with 
other forms of Protestantism? (3) Even that cannot 
alter our conviction of the rightfulness in geneial of the 
position of those Lutherans if it can be shown that their 
contention was at times connected with an unjustifiable 
enthusiasm and even fanaticism. Church history shows 
us that in times of persecution good movements can lose 
their balance for a season. Among the Christians of the 



42 Cf. R. E. XVII, p. 550, n. 

43 At another place in his Una Sancta (i, 3, §70) he has stated 
it correctly. 

44 See Una Sancta II, book 3, p. 141. Cf. vol. I, book 3, §§66-68. 
Compare further on "Scheibel," R. E. XVII, p. 594, 20-42; p. 550, 8; 
p. 551, 36ff. Compare on "Huschke," R. E. VIII, p. 469, 25ff ; p. 470, 
27S. 

45 See R. E. XII, p. 7, 10-21. Wangemann ignores too much 
the significance of a Lutheran government for the Lutheran 
Church. But his position is artificial. He does not and cannot 
speak his own soul. There can be no stronger refutation of his 
attitude to the demand of those Lutherans than what he himself 
writes in book 5 of the Una Sancta I, pp. 378-87- 



127 



first centuries some went so far as even to seek martyr- 
dom. A good and a great man like Tertullian was a rep- 
resentative of such a mistaken view. History will con- 
tinue to speak with respect of the case of the old Prussian 
Lutherans in their conflict with the Union policy of the 
Hohenzollerns. In spite of Wangemann's elaborate publi- 
cations we find that such a standard work as the "Pro- 
testantische Realencyclopaedie" of twenty-four volumes 
relates the Hoenigern case and the persecution of those 
Lutherans in essential harmony with original reports. 46 
Hengstenberg's "Evangelische Kirchenzeitung," in 1859, 
looked back over more than thirty years after the intro- 
duction of the Union and wrote : "What has been accom- 
plished? Twenty to thirty thousand Lutherans have 
been driven across the Atlantic, forty to fifty thousand 
into independent Lutheran organizations, and within the 
Church nothing but conflict and troubled conscience 
wherever the word 'Union' is pronounced." 47 

IV. THE PLAN OF AN ABSORPTIVE UNION CHANGED INTO A 
CONFEDERATION. 

It was in consequence of that constantly growing op- 
position which led to the establishment of a free Luth- 
eran Church in Prussia that Frederick William III de- 
cided to give to the Union a more confederative charac- 
ter. In the year 1834 he issued a historically significant 
decree which, in one section, read as follows: "The 
Union does not aim at nor does it mean a giving up of the 
existing confessions of faith; neither is the authority 
annulled, which these confessions have hitherto had. The 
adoption of the Union means only an expression of the 
spirit of moderation and toleration, which does not any- 
more make the difference in some points of doctrine, to 
which the other party holds, a cause for refusing the out- 



46 See R. E. XII, p. 6ff. 

47 Cf. American Lutheran Survey, June 5th, 1918, p. 203; also 
Lutheran Church Work and Observer, July 4, 1918, and Fritschel, 
Lutherisch oder Uniert, p. 21. Wartburg Publ. House, Chicago. 



128 



ward church-fellowship. The adoption of the Union is a 
matter of free choice, and it is therefore a mistaken idea 
that the introduction of the renewed order of service in- 
volves the adoption of the Union or is thereby indirectly 
effected." 48 

It cannot be denied that in this decree a course differ- 
ent from the original plan is observable. In the procla- 
mation of 1817 the aim was at the establishment of "a 
renewed Evangelical Christian Church," based upon the 
consensus, or "the principal points in Christianity, 
wherein both churches agree." The dissensus was de- 
clared to be "nonessential." Now, the existing Confes- 
sions were not to be given up, their former authority was 
not to be annulled. Yet, three union factors were to re- 
main in force: (1) the non-confessional state church gov- 
ernment; (2) the Agenda, (3) the outward church-fel- 
lowship at the altar and in other matters. 49 The Union, 
also in this second stage of its development, remained a 
dualism. That was the reason why the separated Luth- 
erans felt that they could not compromise. This new 
order of the king, therefore, did not bring peace to the 
Church of Prussia. Two factions now stood opposed to 
each other: the friends of the Union who were striving 
to bring to recognition its original absorptive character, 
and the Lutherans who strove for the confessional char- 
acter of the Lutheran Church in the Union so that they 
might not be driven, in their conscience, to follow the 
Lutherans that separated themselves from the state 
church. 

The Union party was represented by the so-calle*d 
Union theologians, also known in the theological develop- 
ments of that age as the "mediating theologians," the 

48 Wangemann, Die kirchliche Kabinets-Politik Friedr. Wilh. 
Ill (Una Sancta II), pp. 327*. Cf. Hauck in R. E. XX, p. 257, 40. 
Meusel VII, p. 6. Stahl, p.481. 

49 To this church-fellowship belonged such matters as sub- 
scription at ordination to "the confessions of our Evangelical 
Church," freedom for pastors to serve either church, as long as 
the congregations did not object. See Meusel VII, p. 6, 2nd col- 
umn; Stahl, p. 483. 



129 

most influential of whom were Julius Mueller, Dorner, C. 
I. Nitzsch, Luecke, Ullmann, Schenkel, J. P. Lange, Bey- 
schlag and others. The position of these men on the 
Union was best expressed in the writing of Mueller, "Die 
Evangelische Union" (1845), and in that of Nitzsch, 
"Urkundenbuch der Evangelischen Union" (1853) . 50 
The aim was at a common confession for the Union, 
drafted by Nitzsch, 61 and presented by his party at a gen- 
eral synod in Berlin, held in 1846. This confession, in 
the shape of a formula for ordination 52 eliminated even 
parts of the Apostles' Creed as too much out of harmony 
with the present state of theological science, and it pre- 
sented, in the language of Scripture passages, what was 
regarded as fundamental in the Lutheran and Reformed 
confessions, thereby silently relegating the differences 
between the two churches to the category of nonfunda- 
mentals. The Union theologians, especially Jul. Mueller 
(professor in Halle), had developed a theory as a scien- 
tific foundation for the distinction between fundamentals 
and non-fundamentals. It was the distinction between 
intuition and discursive thought. The objectively divine 
in Scripture and in the historic confessions of the 
churches constitutes the fundamentals as opposed to the 
human conception in Scripture and confession, which is 
non-fundamental. 53 But there was so much opposition 
to this "Nicenum of the nineteenth century," to the "Nitz- 
schenum" as it was called, that the government could not 

'50 On these two standard works, see Wangemann, "Die Preus- 
sische Union in ihrem Verhaeltnis zur Una Sancta" (I, book 6, pp. 
350-54)- Nitzsch published in his book the following Union docu- 
ments as an expression of the true Union : the Marburg Articles, 
the Wittenberg Concord, the Consensus of Sendomir, the Bran- 
denburg Confessions, the Union proclamation of 1817, (the decree 
of 1834 was omitted), a proposed creed for the Union by Nitzsch 
himself, of which we shall now speak. 

51 R. E. XIV, p. 133, 23. 

52 See it quoted by Nitzsch, p. 127, and by Wangemann, ut 
supra, p. 206. Cf. Kurtz, Church History (Engl.) §193, 3. R. E. IV, 
803, 5, 18; XIII, 533, ioff ; XIV, 132, 60. 

53 See the most interesting discussion of this matter in Stahl, 
Luth. Kirche und Union, pp. 367-97 : "Die Union im Sinne der Ver- 
mittlungstheologie." Cf. Meusel, "Begruendung der Union durch 
die Unionstheologie," in Handlexikon VII, p. 8. 



130 

for a moment consider its adoption. This negative at- 
titude of the government to the propositions of this gen- 
eral synod of Berlin in 1846 marked the final failing of 
an absorptive Union in Prussia. 

The party of confessional Lutherans in the Union had 
received its stimulation through the Breslau movement 
of which we have reported. In the period of persecution 
through the State the missionaries of the persecuted came 
into the congregations in Silesia, Pommerania, Posen, 
Brandenburg, Province of Saxony and awakened the Lu- 
theran consciousness of the people. This took effect es- 
pecially with the earnest believers in the congregations. 
With the scruples over the Union they came to their pas- 
tors, and these, in order to be able to answer the ques- 
tions of their parishioners, were forced to study the long 
forgotten confessions of the Church. So Lutheran con- 
sciousness was revived among the ministers who soon be- 
gan to send petitions to Berlin for safeguarding the Lu- 
theran Church. Lutheran organizations sprang into ex- 
istence in all the eastern provinces of Prussia. 54 Pom- 
merania was especially leading in this movement. The 
year of revolution, 1848, came. King Frederick William 
IV was at the point of abandoning the government of the 
Church. 55 The Lutheran Association in Pommeria had 
already taken steps for an independent organization of 
the Lutheran Church. But the waves of the revolution 
soon receded and restoration of the old order in church 
matters followed. At this time, Sept. 10th, 1849, all the 
separate Lutheran organizations assembled in Witten- 
berg and organized themselves into a central society. 
They established themselves upon five theses which are 
known in history as the "Wittenberger Saetze," and form 
the program of the organization. These read as follows : 

First. "We stand on the confessions of the Evangeli- 
cal Lutheran Church." 

54 See article "Lutherischer Verein" in Meusel IV, p. 379ff. 

55 Wangemann, Die Preussische Union in ihrem Verhaeltnis 
zur Una Sancta I, book 6, p. 309. 



131 



Second, "We are convinced that our congregations 
have never rightly ceased to be Lutheran congregations, 
and that we are in duty bound to defend their confes- 
sional rights with all our might." 

Third. "The confessional rights of the Lutheran con- 
gregations demand for their safeguard a confessional 
constitution. Accordingly, we ask for recognition and a 
carrying through of the Lutheran Confessions in cultus, 
congregational constitutions and government." 

Fourth. "As the first aim of our endeavor we mention 
the liberation of the altar service from all ambiguity and 
a full expression of our confessions in the entire divine 
service. Further, we demand a guarantee of our con- 
fessional independence in the administration of the 
church government and preservation of Lutheran princi- 
ples in our congregational constitutions." 

Fifth. "These ends we do not wish to accomplish by a 
leaving of the State Church, because we feel bound in 
conscience to carry through this fight for the good rights 
of our Lutheran Church upon her own territory within 
the State Church." 

This was a time in the history of the Prussian Church 
Union when it was not regarded wise to ignore the de- 
mands of the Lutherans. The State was interested in 
keeping them from joining the separated Lutherans. So 
it came that the king (Frederick William IV), in a de- 
cree of 1852, made to them a concession that affected 
even the church government. In that order the follow- 
ing stipulation was made : "The Evangelische Oberkirch- 
enrat consists of members belonging to both churches, 
and if there is a matter that can be decided only by fol- 
lowing the confessions of one of the two churches then 
the preparatory decision (Vorfrage) is to be reached by 
a vote of the members belonging to that side, and their 
decision is then made the basis for the vote of the entire 
body. Therefore in matters pertaining to the Lutheran 
Church only those members of the Oberkirchenrat who 



132 

belong to that confession shall decide." 56 At first this 
so-called itio in partes decree was much appreciated by 
the Lutherans, because it showed that the king seriously 
wanted to safeguard the Lutheran Church and that the 
confederative character of the Union, as announced in 
1834 (in place of the absorptive of 1817), was to be the 
policy of the State. As to the real value and practica- 
bility of this decree, however, there followed a consider- 
able discussion. 57 The statement has been made that 
never in the history of the Oberkirchenrat has a decision 
been made after the procedure suggested in the decree. 68 
The fact is that close upon the heel of this itio in partes 
order there followed another decree (July 12, 1853) that 
was to take care of the interests of the Union. 59 
Here the Lutherans were censured for their con- 
fessional policies ("konfessionelle Sonderbestrebun- 
gen"). The two decrees of 1852 and 1853 taken 
together reflect in an interesting way the policy which 
the Prussian State Church was persuing. The adherents 
to the Lutheran and the Reformed confessions were to 
have free religious exercise in their local territories, but 
a public advocacy of the principles of either of the two 
churches was to be discouraged. Propaganda was per- 
mitted only for the Union, not for the Confession. The 
Lutherans especially were to be kept from asserting 
themselves. Wangemann says (p. 358) that since 1854 
no confessional Lutheran was called into the higher 
church offices. The friends of the Union organized them- 
selves into a strong association (Positive Union). Stahl 
asked to be dismissed from the Oberkirchenrat, and his 
resignation was gladly accepted (1857) . It was the time 
when Hoffmann and Dorner were the most influential 
men in the government of the Prussian Church Union. 69 

56 See the text of this Kabinets-Ordre in Wangemann, Die 
Preussische Union, Una Sancta I, 6, pp. 332ff. 

57 See Wangemann, ut supra, pp. 338ff. 

58 Stahl, p. 488. 

59 Printed in Wangemann, ut supra, pp. 342L 

60 See the characterization of these two men as promoters of 
the Union by Wangemann, ut supra, pp. 377-8o. On Hoffmann's 
conception of the Union cf. R. E. VII, p. 228, 36ff. 



W. Hoffmann especially, a talented executive, whom 
the king had called from the South as his court-preacher, 
and as General Superintendent for Brandenburg, 61 was 
the man who labored to consolidate the Prussian Church 
Union into what it was in the closing days of the old 
German empire. During the time of his office (1852- 
73) the final organization of the Union with regard to 
congregation, liturgical acts, synod and general synod 
was wrought out in all details. 62 Especially from 1860 
to 1873 the work upon this complicated piece of church 
organization had been continuous. 63 Hoffman expressed 
his personal ideal of a union as follows : "I am a mem- 
ber of the Evangelical Lutheran Confession in so far as 
I was educated, confirmed and ordained in the Lutheran 
Church. But to this I add that my theological convic- 
tion leads me to the union of the two Confessions as it 
has in reality always existed in the Augsburg Confes- 
sion. 64 That the Lutheran dogma by itself and without 
regard to the Reformed no more expresses to me the the- 
ological form of my faith than does the Reformed dogma, 
unsupplemented by the Lutheran; that I, therefore, re- 
gard a real inner union of the two Confessions as an un- 
deniable demand of each of them, and can acknowledge 
only one Evangelical Protestant Church in two confes- 
sional types — not two kinds of evangelical churches." 65 
And yet, Hoffman admitted that an absorptive Union as 
suggested by Nitzsch and Mueller in 1846 (see above) 

6i He had been president of the Basle Foreign Mission insti- 
tute which is established upon the principle of an absorptive 
Union. 

62 For tracing the development after 1873 we refer to Rieker, 
"Die rechtliche Stellung der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland ;" 
also "Jubilaeumsdemkschrift des Evangelischen Oberkirchen- 
rates" (1900). Cf. Beyschlag, "Deutsch-Evanglische Blaetter," 
1900 pp. 497ff- 

63 Wangemann, as quoted, pp. 359ff; cf. 404. 

64 Hoffmann meant the Augsburg Confession of 1530, inter- 
preted by the Variata editions after 1540. The German Reformed 
have always tried to harmonize the Augsburg Confession thus 
qualified, with the Heidelberg Catechism. This explains why the 
advocates of historical Ltuheranism have insisted upon subscrip- 
tion to the unaltered Augsburg Confession. See pp. 42-43 and 
721. of our discussions. Also Neve, Introduction to Lutheran 
Symbolics, pp. 9iff; 98f ; 207ff. 

65 R. Koegel in R. E. VIII, p. 228, 36-45. 



134 

was not practicable and advisable for Prussia. The con- 
federative character of the Union was recognized in the 
organization that became law in 1873. 

Not e : When we speak of the Prussian Church Union 
it must be remembered that the accessions to Prussia in 
1866, chief of which were the Lutheran provinces of Han- 
over and Schleswig-Holstein, kept their own church 
government and, consequently, did not join the Union. 
Hoffmann and Dorner strongly advocated the joining of 
the church of these provinces to the Union. But so 
frankly did he reveal the ultimate plans of the Prussian 
Union, namely the creation of one Evangelical National 
Church for all Germany, that the extra-Prussian Luther- 
ans everywhere were scared into the general watchword : 
"Nur nicht unter den Evangelischen Oberkirchenrat." 
(Wangemann, 398.) It was at this time (1868) when 
Hoffmann wrote his book, "Deutschland Einst und Jetzt 
im Licht des Reiches Gottes." Here he said, p. 494 : "It 
is the mission of the Prussian Church to lead in the 
Union, and it is to comprise the whole German Protes- 
tantism into one church. The Church will be a German 

church only when the territorial principle has 

yielded to the national principle. He, therefore, who re- 
sists the development and expansion of the Union, ne- 
gates the results of the German Reformation and miscon- 
ceives thoroughly the mission of Germany with regard to 
the Church." It was in consequence of such utterances 
of the leading men of the Union 66 that the Allgemeine 
Evangelisch Lutherische Konferenz, by the calling of a 
convention in the city of Hanover (1868), came into ex- 
istence. 67 

The Prussian Church Union which in these times of 
reconstruction may soon have to give way to some kind 
of free church organization, is very complicated and not 
easily defined. In order to arrive at an adequate de^ 
scription of its character a few questions may be formu- 
lated, which we shall try to answer : 

66 Dorner also spoke of a "universal German Evangelical 
Church." Wangemann, p. 308. 

67 Wangemann, p. 400. 



135 

First : Was it correct to speak of a Lutheran Church 
and a Reformed Church in the old provinces of Prussia? 
Up to the treaty of Versailles these provinces were Bran- 
denburg, East and West Prussia, the Province of Saxony, 
Posen, Silesia, Westfalia, and the Rhine Province. Prof. 
Kawerau said in a letter to the writer a number of years 
ago: We can speak only of a State Church in Prussia, 
in which the congregations are either Lutheran or Re- 
formed, or (in very small number) consensus congrega- 
tions and that the government of this State Church had 
the obligation to protect these — Lutheran or Reformed — 
congregations upon their historical confessional basis. 
Stahl says: "The State Church of Prussia is not a 
Union church. It has not a common confessional basis 
upon which, as a church, it stands, but its basis is 
throughout the distinguishing confessions of the Luth- 
eran and the Reformed Churches." 68 

Second : How was the agitation regarding the Agenda 
settled in that final organization? (See above). There 
the concession was made that in the administration of the 
communion the Lutheran form of distribution may be 
used, but it was conditioned in such a way that it was 
difficult for the ministers to avail themselves of the privi- 
lege. In 1895, finally, a new Agenda was issued with 
parallel forms for the administration of the sacraments. 
There was a Lutheran form for the Lutherans, a Re- 
formed form for the Reformed congregations, and also a 
Union form for the congregations that had actually 
joined the Union. 

Third: How was the confessional obligation at the 
ordination of ministers settled? Here the instruction 
reads as follows: The minister is to preach no other 
doctrine "but the one which is founded on God's pure and 
clear Word, written in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and 
New Testaments, our only norm of faith, and as it is tes- 
tified to in the three chief church symbols, the Apostolic, 
the Nicene and the Athanasian Creed and in the confes- 
sions of our church." To this is added the remark: 
68 Stahl, ut supra, p. 4gof. 



136 

"Here, according to custom (wie herkoemmlich) , the 
symbolical writings are named." In the Lutheran pro- 
vinces it is the Augsburg Confession of 1530. 

Fourth: What is the situation with regard to the 
catechisms? A convenient guide for answering this 
question is offered by Chors' comprehensive article on 
catechisms in Vol. X of the Realencyclopaedie. Here it 
is interesting to observe that Union catechisms are in use 
not in Prussia, but in the places outside of Prussia where 
the Union was introduced, namely in Anhalt, Hesse, Nas- 
sau, Waldeck, Hanau, Baden, the Palatinate on the 
Rhine. 69 In the old provinces of Prussia, in entire con- 
sistency with the confederative character of the Union, 
either the Lutheran or the Heidelberg Catechism is in 
use. All eastern provinces are Lutheran with perhaps 
only one Reformed congregation in the larger cities for 
Reformed people who by vocational interests have to live 
in such cities. Parts of East Friesland (a section of 
Hanover), but especially the Rhine provinces are over- 
whelmingly Reformed, and here the Heidelberg Cate- 
chism or a catechism confessionally identical with the 
Heidelberg is in use. 70 

With regard to confessional statistics it has frequently 
been a question how to classify the inhabitants of Prus- 
sia as it was before the peace treaty of Versailles in 1919. 
This question should be answered as follows: (1) Han- 
over (excepting parts of East Friesland), Schleswig-Hol- 
stein, and about 500,000 inhabitants of Hesse-Nassau 71 
are Lutheran in the sense that they are not even under 
the Union. (2) Regarding the 18,105,098 inhabitants 
of the older provinces (see above), the Lutheran Church 
would be entitled to all who have been confirmed on Lu- 
ther's catechism provided that in the interpretative parts 
that catechism has not been modified by unionistic ma- 
terials. Dr. M. Reu, a specialist on catechisms, said in 
an article in the "American Lutheran Survey" (May 7, 

69 R. E. X, See pp. 144*- 

70 R. E. X, p. 153, 20-52 ; cf. p. 147, 2off. 

71 These provinces form the accessions since 1866. 



137 

1919), "There are in the established Church of Prussia 
still at least eleven millions, who have been instructed in 
Luther's Small Catechism." 

And yet, our description would be incomplete if in clos- 
ing we would not at the same time call attention to the 
various Union features that obtained everywhere in the 
Prussian State Church. We refer to the co-operation in 
Inner Missions, in Foreign Missions, in Christian publi- 
cation work, to the pulpit fellowship everywhere and the 
altar fellowship at many places, and particularly to the 
theological faculties in the university. Much of this also 
obtained in the Lutheran dominions of Germany, outside 
of Prussia. Dr. Kawerau, in the letter to which we re- 
ferred, tells how, as a gradual effect of the Union, the 
confessional division with regard to several of the theo- 
logical branches in the university and in the field of theo- 
logical literature has ceased to exist. This, he says, has 
reference especially to exegesis and church history. The 
commentaries of the Reformed exegete Godet, in German 
translation, are printed and sold by a Lutheran publisher 
in Hanover. Prof. Schlatter, Reformed, was called from 
the Swiss university at Bern to fill the chair of New Tes- 
tament Exegesis at the Lutheran University in Tuebin- 
gen. Oettli, another Swiss theologian, was put into the 
chair of Old Testament Exegesis in the Greifswald Uni- 
versity, the most Lutheran in the schools of the Prussian 
Union. A number of years ago there were two Reformed 
professors teaching Old Testament and Church History 
at Breslau, the university of the Lutheran province of 
Silesia. When it comes to Dogmatics, Kawerau adds, and 
especially in the field of Practical Theology, the confes- 
sional division exists. 

The developments that have been reviewed in this 
chapter offer much material for reflection. But this can 
be given with more profit after the next chapter has been 
presented, which is to discuss the union of the "German 
Evangelical Synod of America." 



138 



CHAPTER VI. 



THE GERMAN EVANGELICAL SYNOD OF NORTH AMERICA. 



Literature: Sckory, Geschichte der Deutschen Evange- 
lischen Synode von Nord-Amerika (1889). Muecke, 
Geschichte der Deutschen Evangelischen Synode von 
Nord-Amerika (1915). Bruening, The Evangelical 
Church, and Kokritz, The Evangelical Church in Amer- 
ica (the same under the title "Memorial Diamond Jubi- 
lee"). Both of these discourses are published together 
with a description of the Church- Year by J. H. Horst- 
mann, as "Evangelical Fundamentals, Part One" (Eden 
Publishing House, St. Louis, Mo., 1916). Graeper, The 
German Evangelical Synod of Nord Amerika (1912). 
Denkschrift zur 50jaehr. Jubelfeier der Deutschen Evan- 
gelischen Synode von Nord-Amerika (1890). Koch, Wie 
lange hinket ihr auf beiden Seiten? (published by the 
author, Rev. W. Koch, Grand Haven, Mich.) Niefer, 
Evangelisch und Lutherisch (Die Hauptunterschiede 
zwischen unserer evangelischen Kirche und den ortho- 
dox-lutherischen Synoden) , published by the author, Rev. 
H. Niefer, 550 Russel Ave., Milwaukee, Wis. Mayer, Die 
Zukunft der Deutschen Evangelischen Synode von Nord- 
Amerika (1913). Bauer, Der Freiheitskampf der Re- 
formation im Lichte der Gegenwart (1917). Ruber, 
Joseph Rieger (a print from Jahresberichte der Gesell- 
schaft fuer die Erforschung der Geschichte der Deut- 
schen in Maryland). Irion, Der Evangelische Katechis- 
mus (a book of 453 pp., published by the Eden Pub- 
lishing House, St. Louis, Mo., 1897) . "Evangelical Fun- 



139 



damentals, Part Two" (Eden Publishing House). Evan- 
gelical Catechism, also in German (the hand-book for 
catechetical instruction), Eden Publishing House, revised 
edition of 1896. Evangelical Book of Worship (pub- 
lished by the synod, 1916). Prof. Dr. W. Becker, Evan- 
gelische Glaubenslehre (Eden Publishing House, 1913). 
Braendele, Deutsche Evangelische Synode, in R. E. XIV, 
p. 178 ff. Minutes of district synods. Magazin fuer 
Evangelische Theologie und Kirche (Eden Publishing 
House). Neve, 1st zwischen der Unierten Amerikas und 
der Landeskirche Preussens wirklich kein Unterschied? 
(Lutheran Literary Board, Burlington, la., 1903). The 
same in English in Lutheran Quarterly (Gettysburg, 
Pa.), 1903, p. 67 ff. As further references the following 
works have been used: Stahl, Wangemann, Hering, 
Koestlin-Kawerau, Rudelbach, Kurtz (as cited before), 
Hodge (Systematic Theology III, 611 ff.), Reu (Die Gua- 
denmittellehre, 1917), Neve, (History of Lutheran 
Church in America and Introduction to Lutheran Sym- 
bolics) . Among the documentary literature we mention 
Zwingli's Commentarius de vera et falsa religione, Cal- 
vin's Institutions, book IV, chapters 14, 15, 17; cf. Eng- 
lish translation by J. Allen, sixth edition, the Confessions 
of the Reformed Church (Niemeyer), the Book of Con- 
cord (Jacobs' People's Edition.) Note further the arti- 
cles in the R. E. (on "Orthodoxie" by Burger, XIV, 496; 
on "Homiletik" by Caspari, VIII, 303 ; on "Protestantis- 
mus" by Kattenbusch, XVI, 135 ff . ; on "S. S. Schmucker" 
by Spaeth, XVII, 665,) ; also in Lutheran Quarterly (the 
previous articles of our series), and in the Lutheran 
Church Review, (articles by J. A. W. Haas on "The 
Genius of Lutheranism," January 1919, and L. F. Gruber 
on "The Lutheran Church and Christian Union," April 
1918). 



140 

I. HISTORICAL ORIENTATION. 

After the Union had been established in Germany, it 
was natural that, among the many German immigrants 
to America during the second third of the nineteenth cen- 
tury, there should also be sympathizers with the Union 
idea. Some of these were instrumental in calling mis- 
sionaries from the Union circles of the Fatherland. The 
first to respond to these invitations was the Foreign Mis- 
sion Institute at Basle (1835). The Rhenish Foreign 
Mission Institute at Barmen also sent candidates for the 
ministry. In 1837 the "Evangelical Association for Pro- 
testant Germans in North America" at Barmen (the so- 
called "Langenberg Association") was organized. The 
Bremen "Evangelical Association for German Protes- 
tants in America" followed in 1839. In 1852 a "Society 
for German Evangelical Missions in America" was called 
into existence in Berlin. Later the "Johannes Stift" at 
Berlin, a branch institution of Wichern's "Rauhe Haus," 
near Hamburg, created a department, the so-called 
"Sternenhaus," for the education of ministers in Ameri- 
ca. All these societies and institutions have given their 
chief support to the German Evangelical Synod of North 
America. 1 

In 1840 the men from Basle and Barmen organized 
themselves as the "German Evangelical Church Associa- 



i Schory, Geschichte der Deutshen Evangelischen Synode von 
Nord-Amerika, pp. 16 ff. Muecke Gesch. d. Deutsch. Ev. Syn. in N. 
A., pp. 63 ff. Kokritz in "Fundamentals, Part One," pp. 27 f. Braen- 
dele in R. E. XIV, pp 178, 36 ff. Krause in "Magazin," Sept. 1919, 
pp. 232 ff. The Langenberg and the Berlin Societies for a time, 
also contributed to Lutheran Mission work in America. In fact, 
it was by the missionaries from these associations that the Luth- 
eran Synod of Wisconsin, now a part of the Synodical Conference, 
was organized (1848) and supplied for nearly twenty years, 
until this body felt that it had to decide against the Union. See 
O. Engel in Neve, Brief History of the Lutheran Church in Amer- 
ica (second edition), pp. 320-324. 



141 



was at St. Louis, Mo. Another "Evangelical" associa- 
tion, small in numbers, was founded in Ohio (1850), 
which affiliated itself with the association of the West in 
1858. A like association had come into existence in the 
East (1854), and it also joined the body in the West 
(1860) . Then there was a "United Evangelical Synod of 
the Northwest," numbering forty-eight ministers and 
covering Northern Illinois, Northern Indiana, Michigan 
and Wisconsin; also an Eastern offshoot of this body, 
which numbered twenty-five ministers. 2 In 1872 these 
also joined the larger body around St. Louis. Now the 
name was chosen, by which the synod is known to-day, 
the "German Evangelical Synod of North America." A 
new name is under consideration at the present time: 
"The Evangelical Church in America." 3 

At the celebration of its seventy-fifth anniversary in 
1915 the synod numbered 1074 ministers, who were serv- 
ing 1381 congregations, of which 978 were formally af- 
filiated with the synod, the rest being independent. Its 
educational institutions are the theological seminary at 
St. Louis, Mo., and the college at Elmhurst, 111. The 
chief publications are the "Friedensbote," with more than 
24.000 subscribers, the "Evangelical Herald" (both week- 
ly papers for the home), and, for ministers, the "Magazin 
fuer Evangelische Theologie und Kirche" — all published 
by the synodical "Eden Publishing House," St. Louis, Mo. 

II. SOME FACTORS EXPLANATORY OF THE GROWTH OF THE 

BODY. 

1. The support from the Union circles in the Father- 
hind has been pointed out. It has been, indeed, a most 
telling factor especially in the way of supplying the 
tion of the West" (deutscher Evangelischer Kirchenver- 
ein des Westens) . The centre of this new church body 

2 Because of rationalism, these two organizations, originally- 
one body, had become separated. See Muecke, as cited, pp. 187 ff. 

3 On the developments which have here been related see 
Schory, pp. 13 f., 33 ff. ; Muecke, pp. 96 ff ., 154 ff., 187 ff. ; Kokritz in 
"Fundamentals I," p. 33; the same author in "Diamond Jubilee," 
p. 11; Graeper, Evangelical Church, p. 33; Braendele in R. E. XIV, 
pp. 178-80. 



142 



young and struggling synod with ministers at a time 
when the immigration from Germany was at its height. 
From the Basle Foreign Mission Institute alone about 
one hundred fifty men have been sent. 4 

2. Reaction against confessional Lutheranism in 
America has also contributed to the growth of this churck 
body. To make plain what we have in mind we have to 
go back into the doctrinal history of Lutheranism. 

Lutheranism in America, at the time of its establish- 
ment, had to pass through a period of controversies. The 
differing tendencies of Lutheranism in Germany, which 
were produced by the post-Reformation age, had been 
pretty well settled with the establishment of territorial 
churches. In America, under the free church conditions, 
these differing tendencies had much to do with the confes- 
sional basis of a synod, and, therefore, the old conflicts 
came up again. Was the basis for the Lutheran Church 
in America to be the Augsburg Confession only (in the 
sense of including Melanchthon's later development as 
expressed in the Variata of 1540 and its successors, so 
that the doors of the Lutheran Church would be kept open 
for the influences from Calvinism and the denomina- 
tions) ; or was it to be the Augsburg Confession, in har- 
mony with the Smalcald Articles and the doctrinal de- 
velopment as expressed in the Formula of Concord ? Im 
other words, was Lutheranism in America to be estab- 
lished upon Melanchthonianism or upon the historic po- 
sition of Luther? What was to be the attitude toward 
the surrounding denominations? W T as the Lutheran 
Church of America to represent "a Lutheranism, modi- 
fled by the Puritan element," or was it to be established 
upon its own historic genius as first expressed in the cate- 
chisms of Luther, in the Schwabach Articles and in the 
Augsburg Confession of 1530 ? 5 These were by no means 

4 Cf. Krause, in "Magazin" (Sept. 1919) P- 333- Many were the 
candidates sent from Barmen, Berlin, and the St. Chrischona In- 
stitute near Basle. . . 

5 All these questions are discussed more in detail in Neve, In- 
troduction to Lutheran Symbolics, pp. 79 *•> 91-100; 207 ff. Com- 
pare also his Brief History of the Lutheran Church in America, 
2nd ed., 1916, pp. 113 8; 430- 



143 



idle questions, but they affected the very life of the Lu- 
theran Church in this country, its genius, its future and 
its existence among the denominations. It may be ad- 
mitted that much of the controversy was unnecessarily 
sharp, and that the distinguishing line between essentials 
and non-essentials was not always observed; but con- 
sidering the whole situation — the transition into English, 
with which a large part of the Lutheran Church in Amer- 
ica was confronted at an early time, the influences from 
the revival movements in the first half of the nineteenth 
century, the problem of finding a safe middle ground be- 
tween an ultra-conservative and a confessedly lax ten- 
dency — the conflict was unavoidable. It is practically 
settled now, and, taken as a whole, it has yielded a rich 
harvest of experience and insight, on the basis of which 
a great literature of sound theology is springing up. 6 The 
fruit of these controversies is further seen in the reunion 
of great Lutheran bodies which for a long time stood op- 
posed to each other. In 1918, the General Synod, the 
General Council and the United Synod of the South form- 
ed the United Lutheran Church in America. A year be- 
fore a like union took place among the Norwegian Luth- 
erans (the Norwegian Lutheran Synod, the United Nor- 
wegian Church and the Hauge Synod affiliating in the 
United Norwegian Lutheran Church), and the Joint 
Synod of Ohio, the German Iowa Synod and the Buffalo 
Synod have drawn together in a common understanding. 
And almost all of these bodies, together with the Swedish 
Augustana Synod, are federated in the National Luth- 
eran Council. Controversy is not an evil when a true 
union is the goal ! 

The heat of the conflict among the various Lutheran 
synods was at its height in the decades after 1840 when 
the German Evangelical Synod was in its formative 
period. Having sprung from the Union movements in 



6 We refer to works such as the "Conservative Reformation" 
by Charles Porterfield Krauth. If there is anything that has le- 
gitimized the confessional interests of American Lutheranism it is 
the rich literature that has been sent out by the publication 
bouses of the Lutheran Synods. 



144 



Germany it can readily be seen that the controversies of 
Lutheranism in that time would give stimulus to the 
growth of a synod that had established itself upon the 
Union principle. Doctrinal controversy on the matters 
that separated the Lutherans and Reformed was detested 
as a quarrel over non-fundamentals. Under American 
conditions the appeal was to the congregations. On this 
subject it is always easy to gain the ear of laymen who 
as a rule are not students of church history and who can- 
not always appreciate the principles involved in the con- 
flict between the Confession and the Union. The laymen 
only too often prefer confessional peace where a contend- 
ing for the faith is the need of the hour. But by appeal- 
ing to the layman's aversion to doctrinal controversy the 
German Evangelical Synod was bound to win many fol- 
lowers. 

3. Another factor to be counted in explaining the 
growth of the German Evangelical Synod in congrega- 
tions (affiliated and independent) is to be sought in its 
liberal attitude in matters of doctrine and practice, which 
naturally follows from the Union principle. There are 
especially three considerations that we have in mind : 

(a). From the beginning of its organization the 
synod was invited to do missionary work among a class 
of Germans that "had outgrown all need of religion and 
its restraints." These German immigrants were men of 
means and intelligence, who had settled in the Missouri 
Valley ("Latin settlement"), where they organized as a 
"German Society" (1834). We agree with the writer of 
the "Memorial Diamond Jubilee" when he says: "The 
Evangelical Church had a duty to perform to Germans of 
both classes in these Western communities: to those who 
wanted the Gospel and to those who did not want it, but 
needed it nevertheless." 7 There was no permanency to 
the rationalistic congregations that were created in this 



7 See Kokritz, Diamond Jubilee, p. 4; also "Fundamentals I," p. 
26. Cf. Huber, "Pastor Joseph Rieger," separate print from 
"Jahresberichte der Gesellschaft fuer die Erforschung der Ges- 
chichte der Deutschen in Maryland," p. 26; also Muecke, Geschi- 
chte, pp. 51 f. 



145 

"Latin settlement"; by and by all were absorbed by the 
German Evangelical Synod. This same experience was 
repeated over and over in other localities of this country 
where the German rationalists founded their independ- 
ent congregations. The ministers of the German Evan- 
gelical Synod, men of the true, deep piety as it had been 
cultivated in the Foreign and Inner Mission schools of 
the Fatherland, preached the simple Gospel, used the rich 
German hymnology of Evangelical Protestantism, taught 
the young in parochial schools, and in this way it succeed- 
ed in attracting many congregations that had originally 
been organized by rationalists. Special mention should 
be made of the many congregations of the "Forty Eight- 
ers." The revolution of 1848 in Germany brought to our 
country a considerable immigration of cultured Germans 
who were dissatisfied with the political settlement after 
that revolution. They were opposed to Evangelical 
Christianity, because in the country from where they had 
come they had found that orthodox Protestantism was a 
reactionary factor, the "altars supporting the thrones," 
and so they established in many of our cities — Cincin- 
nati, Ohio, being a centre — liberalistic churches on the 
basis of Unitarianism (Eisenloher's Catechism), sup- 
plied them with rationalistic preachers from Germany, 
who organized themselves as the "Predigerbund." 8 But 
no church organization can have permanency on the basis 
of the negations of Unitarianism. Many of the congre- 
gations soon began to dwindle and to disintegrate, and 
most have been taken over or are being taken over by 
the German Evangelical Synod. Rationalism always had 
an instinctive aversion against confessional positions on 
the basis of distinction between Lutherans and Reformed. 
So the Union principle of the German Evangelical Synod 
with the flexibility of its confessional paragraph (see 
below, sub III, 5), inviting diversity of theological views, 

8 The Predigerbund is in no sense a synod. At the meetings 
there are no delegates from congregations- No mission work is 
done, except a little along humanitarian lines (orphans). Of late 
a theological department has been conducted in connection with 
a seminary in Meadeville, Pa. 



146 



appealed more to these congregations than did either the 
Lutheran or the Reformed Church. Neither would it 
have been possible for the confessionally more liberal 
English Lutherans of the old General Synod to influence 
these independent churches, because offense was taken at 
their prohibitory practice regarding the Christian life 
(prohibition movement, Sabbath observance) . The Ger- 
man Evangelical Synod was sufficiently Germanic and 
could appeal to these independents by finding points of 
contact for an exercise of reformatory influences along 
ethical as well as doctrinal lines. 

While in individual cases there may have been accom- 
modation to and toleration of liberalistic views, yet as a 
body the German Evangelical Synod has stood opposed to 
rationalism, which can be seen from many of its utter- 
ances and actions in the earlier years. In 1865 it sent to 
Germany a unanimous protest against Schenkel's "Char- 
akterbild Jesu." In 1870 a strong condemnatory resolu- 
tion was passed against the rationalistic "Protestanten- 
verein" abroad and on this side of the Atlantic. Not even 
a moderately negative theology was tolerated in the syn- 
odical seminary, of which proof was given about 1880 
when a very talented and much appreciated teacher in the 
seminary of the synod, Prof. E. Otto, was forced to va- 
cate his chair because of insistence upon liberalistic 
views. 9 

(b). The attitude toward lodges has also aided the 
synod in its growth. The field of the synod was among 
the Germans and the German Lutherans, not especially 
among the German Reformed, except incidentally. All 
the stronger German Lutheran bodies started out with an 
attitude of decided opposition to the lodge, i. e., to those 
of the secret societies with a more or less richly developed 
religious ritual. They saw in these societies, particularly 
in the naturalistic and universalistic character of their 
religious views a negation of the positive Christian reli- 
gion and an influence to undermine the religion of the 
cross and the preaching of sin and grace. This opposi- 

9 See Muecke, Geschichte, pp. 158 f. ; 208; 200 f. 



147 

tion found its expression in refusing church membership, 
communion, Christian burial, or in declining on the part 
of pastors to officiate with lodge chaplains at the same 
service. The German Evangelical Synod, while not al- 
lowing ministers to be lodge members, has from the be- 
ginning opened wide the gates to members of secret so- 
cieties, and its pastors haye freely officiated at their fu- 
nerals, even together with lodge chaplains. This prac- 
tice, at a time when the leading Lutheran synods refused 
to let down the bars, was bound to make the German 
Evangelical Synod popular in lodge circles and to bring 
many members into its fold. 10 The practice of the Ger- 
man Evangelical Synod on the lodge question is another 
symptom of its broad-churchism or the policy of willingly 
accommodating itself to the world "for the purpose of 
winning the world.' ' This may seem, on the surface, a 
Pauline principle, but the danger is in the application of 
it. (It is a danger which confronts all the churches and 
synods with a yielding policy touching this problem) . 

io The practice among the Lutherans of to-day on this prob- 
lem of pastoral theology is not uniform. The stricter synods, such 
as the Synodical Conference, Joint Synod of Ohio, German Iowa 
Synod have given their testimony against lodge religion in the 
pulpit, and also in synodical deliverances. In the synods forming 
the United Lutheran Church there is nowhere and there never was 
any attempt to keep lodge members out of the Church. A good 
many of its synods, however prohibit their ministers from mem- 
bership in the lodge, and the aim of their ministers generally is to 
neutralize the influence of the humanism and moralism of lodge 
religion by a clear preaching of the Gospel after the order of sal- 
vation as taught in the confessions of their church. But the pro- 
hibitory practice of the stricter bodies with regard to the laymen 
are not followed because they cannot bear to see so many Luth- 
erans abandoned by their own church. Our reference here is to 
work among the Germans. It has often been pointed out with 
regard to lodge membership, that there is a characteristic differ- 
ence between native Americans and the Germans. The former 
are less inclined to let their lodge membership interfere with 
their attachment to the Church; but many Germans, in their in- 
stinctive thoroughness, and need for consistency, give themselves 
with heart and soul to the humanistic and universalistic spirit of 
the institution, with the result that the secret society takes the 
place of the Church or at least comes first in their attachment, 
and that it leads them to liberalism in which the religion of reve- 
lation is looked upon as an expression of superstition. By this 
we do not mean to say that this is the case with all Germans, nor 
that lodge membership cannot have the same effect upon the 
American born. 



148 



(c). Broad-churchism, as an explanation of the 
growth of this body, can also be seen in its open door to 
the more worldly elements and to those under church dis- 
cipline in Lutheran congregations. 

There is also broad-churchism in the Lutheran Church. 
English Lutheran synods and congregations in particular, 
even under conservative inflences, give large liberties to 
individual members. The cases for church discipline are 
not so many as in the German synods and congregations 
of the stricter Lutheran bodies. Private differences be- 
tween church members especially are not usually consid- 
ered by congregation and synod. Such matters are left 
to the pulpit and to the pastor's personal influence. Dis- 
cipline, therefore, is limited to cases of unbelief 
and flagrant moral transgression. From this position it 
easily follows that excommunication from a German con- 
gregation of the stricter Lutheran group (except in case 
of grave sin) is not looked upon as a hindrance for ad- 
mission, especially not when a transfer of membership by 
letter is not the mutually accepted practice. 

Hence it can easily be seen what the German Lutheran 
Synods might expect of an opponent like the German 
Evangelical Synod. Here, position was taken upon the 
Union principle. This means that in cases of applica- 
tion for admission from Lutheran quarters doctrinal 
questions naturally were of no consideration. In mat- 
ters touching the Christian life there was the funda- 
mental difference of practice, of which we are reminded 
by the above reference to English Lutheranism. But in 
addition it must be said that in many localities worldly 
elements in Lutheran congregations have felt themselves 
drawn to the German Evangelical Synod and have been 
freely admitted. Here we have one explanation of the 
growth of the body. 

III. THE UNION FEATURES OF THE GERMAN EVANGELICAL 

SYNOD. 

We have now arrived at the subject which must claim 
the chief interest in this chapter. Our series of discus- 



149 

sions is a study of the Union principle as it has operated 
in the history of Protestantism, especially between Luth- 
erans and Reformed. We have accordingly summarized 
the matters of interest under five separate theses: (1) 
Objective truth and subjective conception; (2) Scripture 
opposed to the Creed; (3) An underestimation of the dif- 
ferences between Lutherans and Reformed; (4) The pub- 
lic teaching of the German Evangelical Synod; (5) Its 
confessional paragraph. 

1. Objective Truth Opposed to Its Subjective Conception. 

The fundamental thought at the basis of practically all 
argumentation in favor of the various Union features of 
the German Evangelical Synod is the distinction which 
it makes between truth as such and the conception of it 
on the part of individuals and churches. Schory writes : 
"But between the views of men, which they have of truth, 
and truth itself, there is a great difference. There can be 
various conceptions of truth of which each in its kind is 
justified, because each of them has been gained from a 
different point of view. For truth is not one-sided, but 
many-sided." 11 The argument is that in their confessional 
differences neither the Lutherans nor the Reformed can 
claim to have the truth. Sometimes it is suggested in the 
Union circles that while both have the truth, the differ- 
ence is in view-points; that the contradictions are not 
real, but only seeming; that one view supplements the 
other. Then again it is admitted that there are real con- 
tradictions, real differences, but in the manner of Calix- 
tus, 12 it is insisted that these are not of a religious nature, 
and, therefore, not fundamental. While Calixtus admit- 
ted that actual church union is impossible as long as 
there is disagreement only in non-fundamentals among 
which he counted the Lord's Supper, 13 now the position is 

ii Translated from Geschichte der deutschen Evanglischen 
Synode, p. 7. Cf. Bruenning, Fundamentals I, p. 2. Denkschrift 
zum 50 jaehrigen Jubilaeum, p. 10. 

12 See chapter IV, pp. 86 ff. Cf. Lutheran Quarterly, July 1919, 
pp. 369 ff- 

13 See chapter IV, p. 95. Cf. Luth. Quarterly, /uly 1919, p. 375. 



150 

taken that these can be ignored even in an organic union 
so long as there is agreement in the fundamentals. 

Note 1 : Hehe again, then, there is before us the ques- 
tion : What is fundamental in religion, and as such suffi- 
cient for Church union? To the solution of this problem 
theologians and churchmen of many ages have given 
much thought, usually, however, with the result of find- 
ing that their conclusions yielded little practical result as 
a basis for union. 14 It was the problem of George Ca- 
lixtus. Frederick William III desired his Union to be es- 
tablished upon "the principal points in Christianity." 15 
The Evangelical Alliance, organized in 1846 and founded 
upon nine fundamental articles, 16 was another attempt to 
establish the fundamentals. We may also refer to the 
far-reaching union plans of Dr. S. S. Schmucker, 17 and to 
the endeavors of the Union theologians of Germany in the 
middle of the last century (Mueller, Dorner, Nitzsch), 
who demanded that the Prussian Church Union should be 
established upon what is religiously fundamental. 18 None 
of these attempts brought any permanent result. 

Note 2: It was particularly the distinction between 
religion and theology among the theologians who fol- 
lowed Scheiermacher that furnished the basis upon which 
the Union was argued. This distinction was first de- 
veloped by George Calixtus, 19 but the pupils of Schleier- 
macher renewed it with much energy and in a peculiar 
way. The substance of truth only, so we were told, is re- 
ligion proper, and this is received by "intuition." The 
presentation in discursive thought, ("diskursivem Den- 
ken") is theology which is subject to error, and can 
never adaquately express divine truth. In our discus- 
sion of "Jena versus Wittenberg" 20 our attention was 

14 Cf. pp. 70, 75, 76, 86, 90, 93, 95, 98. Lutheran Quarterly, April, 
1919, pp. 219, 224, 225 ; July, 1919, 369, 371, 374, 367, 379- 

15 Cf. chapter V, p. 119, Lutheran Quarterly, October, 1919, 

P- 534- 

16 See Meusel, Kirchliches Handlexikon I, 89. R. E., I, 377 f. 

17 Neve, Brief History of the Lutheran Church in America, 2nd 
ed., p. 114. 

18 Cf. p. 131 ; in Lutheran Quarterly, October 1919, p. 546. 

19 See pp. 86 f., 91 ff., Lutheran Quarterly, July, 369 f., 372 ff. 

20 See pp. 107 ff., Lutheran Quarterly, July, 1919, pp. 388 ff. 



151 



called to the legitimate element in this distinction be- 
tween religion and theology. Certainly, theological de- 
duction can be carried into such finenesses that it can no 
more be identified with fundamental religion. We have 
an illustration of it in the "Consensus Repetitus" of 
Abraham Calovius (p. 107), and even in the larger Con- 
fessions of both Lutherans and Reformed there may be 
matters that cannot claim to be more than theologumena. 
But on the other hand, very much of what forms the con- 
tents of our Creeds and which undeniably is not purely 
religious "intuition/' but pre-eminently "discursive 
thought", is, after all, inseparable from religion. We 
cannot have religion as pure intuition ; the expression of 
it has to be in discursive thought. Theological concep- 
tions, so long as they are not hair-splitting subtleties, 
are the necessary expression of religious intuition. Even 
the thoughts of God as delivered in the Holy Scriptures 
are not without something of the discursive element. 21 
The statements in the Confessions which express the 
difference between the Lutheran and the Reformed 
churches may be theological in character, but they stand 
in the closest relation to religion. They give individuali- 
ty, precision and aim to the religious idea. "The very 
form grips or coins the thought in a peculiar way ; it ex- 
presses the thought once for all. The form limits the 
confessional thought and determines its direction. It 
keeps the thought (Idee) from associating heteroge- 
neous elements, and so to run into seed." 22 Julius Stahl 
says of these discursive elements in the Creeds: "Sie 
gehoeren der Religion an, sie tragen den Glaubensgehalt. 
Sie sind notwendig, sowohl um die Anschauungen zu 
verdeutlichen, uns zum ganzen Bewusstsein zu bringen, 
als noch mehr, um sie gegen Ausgleitung und Verirrung 
zu wahren und un das gegenseitige gemeinsame Ver- 



21 The fact is that the Union theologians in Germany, in em- 
ploying that distinction between intuition and discursive thought, 
dismissed essential parts of the Scriptures from obligation at the 
ordination of ministers. See Wangemann, Una Sancta I, Book 6, 
pp. 294 ff. ; Stahl, Luth. Kirche und Union, pp. 383-87. 

22 Dr. Stier in "Allgemeine Ev. Luth. Kirchenzeltung," quoted 
in Neve, Introduction to Lutheran Symbolics, p. 28. 



152 



staendnis unter den Menschen herauszustellen, Sie sind 
deshalb gerade das Wesen und die Aufgabe des kirchli- 
chen Bekenntnisses." 23 

It was necessary to interpose these two notes in order 
to throw some sidelights upon the suggestion of Schory 
as quoted above. 

We admit that divine truth cannot be expressed with 
adequacy inhuman speech, as we read I Cor. 13:12: 
"For now we see through a glass darkly; but then face 
to face. Now I know in part ; but then shall I know even 
as also I am known." But inadequate conceptions need 
not be identical with error ! While not adequate in every 
respect they may rest upon Scripture, be divinely true 
as far as they go, and sufficient for the need of the 
Church. In principle, the Creed cannot claim infallibi- 
lity ; but the convinced member, especially the teacher of 
the Church, as long as he confesses the Creed conscienti- 
ously, believes that it expresses the truth of Scripture — 
not necessarily the full truth as it exists in the mind of 
God, yet truth as revealed by Scripture and as experi- 
enced in the life of His Church. 

But can we not say that the differences between the 
churches consist only in view-points, so that both sides 
have the truth from a different point of view? It is 
true, for instance, that many churches accept with the 
Lutherans the doctrine of justification by faith. But 
some regard it from a peculiar view-point, the sov- 
ereignty of God. This does not do away with the Gospel, 
yet the Gospel of free grace becomes clouded (legalism). 
Under Calvinistic preaching, God appears to us more as 
a stern Lord than as a loving Father. We are more His 
obedient servants than His confiding children. A wrong 
view-point can seriously affect the teaching of the Gos- 
pel. But the difference is not always just in view-points. 
This can be seen when we take, for instance, the Lord's 
Supper and the means of grace in general. Here the 
difference between the Lutheran and the Reformed group 

23 Lutherische Kirche und Union, p. 345. 



153 

of churches is exclusive as we shall try to show in an- 
other discussion (Sub. III. 3). Many differences be- 
tween the churches are of such a nature that in the light 
of the Scriptures either the one or the other side must 
be wrong in its conception of Scripture truth 

2. Scripture versus Confession. 

The German Evangelical Synod is not opposed to con- 
fessional standards. Officially it does not desire to 
stand upon the platform of the Campbellites. The Augs- 
burg Confession, Luther's Catechism and the Heidelberg 
Catechism are accepted in the points "where they 
agree." 24 "In these books we have the Bible doctrine as 
free from error, misunderstanding or imperfection as 
man can make it. Therefore we hold to them, placing 
them next to, but below the Bible in point of importance, 
in the matter of the regulation of our faith. And as 
proof of our allegiance to the Bible, we claim the privi- 
lege of going back to the precious Word itself in those 
points in which these books do not perfectly agree." 25 
But this refusal to make a doctrinal profession on the 
matters where the Lutherans and Reformed Confessions 
disagree, and the insistence here to use simply the ex- 
pressions of Scripture without interpreting them con- 
fessionally, have brought into the literature and the 
preaching of the synod the peculiar Union feature of op- 
posing Scripture to the Confessions. "Be it said again, 
the Word of God is our standard of faith. This is evi- 
denced by our name, the Evangelical, the Gospel Church. 
Others may call themselves Lutheran after a man; Re- 
formed because of some incident in history ; Episcopal or 
Presbyterian because of a form of government, or Bap- 
tist after one of the Sacraments, we know nothing su- 
perior to the Bible." 26 Neither do the Lutherans and the 



24 The confessional paragraph is quoted sub III, 5 at the be- 
ginning of the discussion. 

25 Bruening in Fundamentals I, pp. 21 f. 

26 Fundamentals I, p. 21; cf. p. 3. 



154 



Reformed know anything "superior to the Bible," but as 
a church they interpret the Word of God, and for the 
guidance of the souls under their care they express this 
interpretation confessionally. 

This position of the German Evangelical Synod, in- 
viting as it may seem on the surface, leads to the re- 
jection of the Creed in principle. If by appealing to 
uninterpreted Scripture, the differences between Luther- 
ans and Reformed are to be treated as open questions, 
why should it be otherwise with the matters of agreement 
with regard to the doctrinal differences which were 
settled in the adoption of the Nicene Creed? In other 
words, why should the matters of agreement in the Lu- 
theran and the Reformed Confessions have symbolical 
significance? As soon as the principle of the German 
Evangelical Synod is admitted, it would seem that the 
position of the Campbellites is the unavoidable conse- 
quence. That out of the above statements our questions 
suggest themselves can be seen from a large and very 
ably written literature, in articles and tracts, that has 
sprung up in the German Evangelical Synod. The 
tenure of this literature is about this : From Luther and 
Calvin we must come back to the Scriptures. These, 
with freedom of interpretation according to the dictates 
of conscience, constitute a sufficient basis for church 
union. 27 That literature in the German Evangelical 
Synod is not official in nature; it does not bear the im- 
primatur of the synodical publication house, and, there- 
fore, should not be taken as expressing the synod's offi- 
cial doctrinal position. But it shows the conclusions that 
are drawn from the synod's confessional paragraph by 
thinking members of the body. We have here special 
reference to two very ably written booklets, one by W. 
Koch, "Wie lange hinket ihr auf beiden Seiten," the 
other by H. Niefer, "Evangelisch und Lutherisch ?" 

27 It is true there must be freedom of conscience for every in- 
dividual. But is it of no interest to a Lutheran or Reformed con- 
gregation or synod when an individual, repudiating his ordination 
vow, should make such use of his freedom that his work would re- 
sult in confusing his flock and disrupting their union in the faith? 



155 



Koch sees the weakness of his synod's confessional basis 
in this that it adopts the above-mentioned doctrinal stand- 
ards in the points of their agreement. He calls it a con- 
tradiction to the "manly and evangelical" appeal to the 
Word of God alone and a concession to confessionalism 
(pp. 14.15). The evil "fruits of confessionalism" (error 
in the Roman Church, controversy and schism among 
Protestants) are, in his view, "the natural consequences 
of the fact that nowhere one was satisfied with the Holy 
Scriptures alone ; that not the Scriptures themselves, but 
the subjective conception of a man or a number of men 
was made the object of confession, the norm of faith, of 
doctrine and life." (p. 16). "The Word of God only, not 
what men have drawn from the Word of God and have 
formulated and interpreted and individualized in human 
fashion, can be the object of evangelical faith" (p. 18). 
Niefer likewise censures the Lutherans who "read and 
interpret the Bible strictly after the traditions of the 
symbols" which "settle the teaching (of the Bible) once 
for all (endgiltig)" (p. 13). 28 After having rejected 
the Confessions as symbols of Scripture truth (pp. 13, 
14), he appeals to the right of the individual to investi- 
gate the Scriptures for himself, as Luther and the Re- 
formers did (pp. 15. 16). Here the author is perfectly 
right. It is a right which Lutherans also claim, even 
with their quia subscription, as we shall see a little later. 
But the question that can not be left out of consideration 



28 The author of this book is too anxious to put his readers 
under the impression that the Lutherans accept the confessions 
slavishly, with no distinction between creative principles on the 
one hand and theological deductions and elaborations on the 
other, and that they look upon the Creed as settling a doctrine in 
such a way that further development and enrichment is excluded. 
He, like a good many other writers in the German Evangelical 
Synod, makes the mistake of judging too much the Lutheran 
Church of to-day by the seventeenth century type of Lutheran- 
ism. While this type may have its representatives to-day, it ought 
not to be overlooked that the Lutheranism of men like Philippi, 
Vilmar, Loehe, Kliefoth, Rohnert, Krauth, Lutheradt, Kahnis, Zet- 
schwitz, Bard, Ihmels — all opponents of the Union — is in view- 
points essentially different from the Lutheranism that was repre- 
sented by Abraham Calvovius and the Wittenberg theologians of 
the seventeenth century. 



156 

is whether the Church, not the individual, — but the 
Church as a "congregation of believers" can fulfill its 
mission without a common Creed, a recognized symbol 
of unity, according to the demand : "One Lord, one faith, 
one Baptism." The mistake here made is to look upon 
the Confession too much as an interest of the individual 
and not as a concern of the Church. Advice is given to 
the soul to rid itself of all confessional traditionalism 
and to seek truth simply by reading the Bible. 29 But 
when confessional obligation is under discussion we 
must have regard to the needs of the Church, which is 
charged with the duty of leading many souls in the way 
of salvation: by ministerial education, by publishing 
church literature, by sending forth missionaries. Here 
a doctrinal foundation or a confessional basis is needed 
for decision and direction. To be sure, the Church as 
well as the individual must stand for the Scriptures first 
of all. The Scriptures are the Church's real foundation. 
A Church stands on the Creed only in so far (quatenus) 
as that Creed actually expresses the truth of Scripture. 
But a church, if it wants to claim the Scriptures as its 
real foundation, cannot do it by leaving the Scriptures 
uninterpreted. On church-dividing questions such as 
exist between the Lutherans and the Reformed the 
Scriptures must be confessionally interpreted. Appeal 
to the Scriptures while at the same time refusing con- 
fessional interpretation is purely negative. The posi- 
tion upon the Scriptures, in such case, would be a posi- 
tion taken merely in abstracto and not in concreta. 

Men of the Union like to look upon the Creeds as mere 
guides in the search of truth, which make no claim of 

29 See Niefer, pp. 16-18. Cf. Koch, pp. 19-20. It is true that 
Lutheran Christians (of which there are many in the German 
Evangelical Synod) incline to read their Bible through the inter- 
pretation of their catechism and through the conceptions ex- 
pressed in the devotional literature of their church (hymn-books, 
prayer-books), while the Christians of most of the other churches 
— particularly the churches who make little or no use of cate- 
chization— go to the Bible direct and search independently of 
creedal traditions. But on which side is the real advantage? Where 
are the Scriptures most interpreted according to the "analogy of 
faith," or the "proportion of faith," as Paul demands (Rom. 12:6?) 



157 



being standards to be subscribed to with confessional ob- 
ligation. They are guides ("witnesses," so even in the 
Formula of Concord), and as such they have served 
many thoughtful Christians, especially the teachers of 
the Church. But they are at the same time more than 
guides. As witnesses and testimonies of times in the 
history of the Church when, usually after severe and 
trying conflicts, God gave much light, they are also sym- 
bols of the unity of faith between those who have united 
in one church communion. We believe that this is also 
the conception of the conservative members of the Ger- 
man Evangelical Synod when they profess to accept the 
Augsburg Confession, Luther's and the Heidelberg 
Catechism in the matters of their agreement; but we 
also believe that in the refusal to take a confessional at- 
titude on the historical differences between the Luther- 
ans and the Reformed, the synod has created suspicion 
of creeds in general, since their consistent thinkers put 
the Confession in opposition to the Scriptures. 

There are two related questions that call for a brief 
discussion in this connection; these we shall dispose of 
in two appended notes. 

Note 1 : The quatenus and the quia subscription. 
On this subject many writers of the German Evangelical 
Synod have offered reflections in which they have not 
done justice to confessional Lutheranism. The question 
asked is whether the Creed should be accepted and sub- 
scribed because (quia), as a matter of fact, it agrees 
with the Scriptures, or only in so far as (quatenus) the 
subscriber finds that it does agree with the Word of God. 
Our answer is that the quia and the quatenus go to- 
gether. The Scriptures are norma normans. They are 
the only regulating factor in all matters of religion. A 
creed can claim authority only in so far as it expresses 
Scripture truth. But, on the other hand, as has been 
said already, in cases of conflict between confessions, 
especially on matters pertaining to salvation, Scripture 
cannot be left uninterpreted. An attitude has to be tak- 
en. A church, entrusted with the spiritual care of many 
souls, needs to take a definite position in order to guide 



158 

in Scriptural teaching and to offer a bond of union for 
her members. In an accepted Creed the Church 
establishes itself upon, articles of faith, of which she is 
convinced that in their confessional substance they have 
been formulated in harmony with Scripture testimony. 
She can take this position with assurance because she has 
experienced the Scripturalness of that Creed during a 
long history of preaching and teaching and caring for 
souls in many congregations. And now, a church, so 
established upon a Creed, has certainly the right and the 
duty to expect of her candidates for the ministry at their 
ordination something more than a mere quatenus de- 
claration (with which one could subscribe even the de- 
crees of the council of Trent) . At the time of their en- 
tering the ministry, after the completion of their semin- 
ary course, they must be able to express a judgment on 
the Creed which they have studied and be ready to say 
whether they can or whether they cannot accept its con- 
tents. So the candidate for the ministry, in the Lutheren 
Church, declares that he accepts the Church's Confession 
because (quia) of its agreement with Scripture. 

Two objections to this practice may here be answered 
by quoting from our discussion of the "authority of sym- 
bols" in the "Introduction to Lutheran Symbolics," p. 25 
f. : (1) Can we expect a candidate for the ministry, as a 
rule a young man who has just come from the seminary, 
to be sufficiently matured for a quia subscription? He 
Certainly ought to be familiar with the leading principles 
of comparative symbolics. Further, let us remember 
that Lutheranism as expressed in its Confessions is a 
system that rests upon some fundamental articles of 
faith. 30 If the candidate for ordination is in harmony 
with Lutheranism in such fundamentals — along the line 
of anthropology (Augb'g Conf., II, XVIII), soteriology 
(III, IV, VI,), ecclesiology (VII, VIII, XIV), the means 
of grace (V, IX, XIII) , etc.— then he can subscribe with 
a quia. The doctrines more remote from the centre 

30 Romanism, Calvinism, and Socinianism also show their lead- 
ing features in a number of characteristic principles. 



159 

have been formulated in entire agreement with the fun- 
damental doctrines of the Confession. (2) Another ob- 
jection is that the quia subscription enslaves the indi- 
vidual minister, robs him of his God-given right to ex- 
amine the Scriptures for himself and practically does 
away with the freedom of conscience. But this objection 
confuses the situation and by so doing leads to wrong 
conclusions. For him who has taken his ordination vow 
with a quia, the duty to regard the Scriptures as su- 
preme judge in all matters of faith never ceases. If ever 
his conviction should undergo a change, leading him to 
feel that he must change his public teaching accordingly, 
then his quia obligation ceases. No mortal has any au- 
thority to interfere with the right of private judgment 
and with the freedom of conscience. But in such a case, 
denominational honesty, or, better expressed, his con- 
science, should move him to withdraw and to join the 
church which expresses his new faith. Luther's protest 
to Rome cannot be invoked to justify an opposite prac- 
tice. Luther occupied the correct position that not he, 
but Rome had departed from the Apostolic and truly 
Catholic faith. Moreover, if by "right of private judg- 
ment" and "freedom of conscience" he should have 
meant what our liberalists of to-day make it to mean, 
namely, unrestricted liberty to teach doctrines subver- 
sive of the faith of the Church, would he have interfered 
with the teaching of the Antinomians? Would he have 
forced Agricola to that public disputation in Wittenberg 
and to the retraction of his views? In a given church 
and communion an individual cannot claim the right to 
tear down what the Church teaches on the basis of her 
Confessions. In his defence of the right of private judg- 
ment and the freedom of conscience Luther meant that 
no one should lose life and liberty when unable to agree 
with the teaching of the Church. Of the practice of 
Rome he complained: "Mit dem Tode loesen sie alle Ar- 
gument." And again: "Heresy can never be restrained 
with force. It must be grasped in another way. This is 
not the sort of batle that can be settled with the sword. 



160 

The weapon here to be used is God's Word. If that does 
not decide, the decision will not be effected by worldly 
force, though it should drench the whole earth with 
blood. Heresy is a thing of the soul ; no steel can cut it 
out, no waters can drown it. God's Word alone can de- 
stroy it." 31 

Note 2: Lutheranism is said to believe in "unalter- 
able Confessions."* 2 The basis for this charge evident- 
ly is in the fact that in the history of Lutheranism there 
has been considerable discussion of the "unaltered" 
Augsburg Confession as contrasted with the "Variata." 
We shall not here go into the details of this much-venti- 
lated question. 33 All we need to say is that the Lutheran 
Church objected to the altered edition of 1540 and its 
successors, because of the introduction of two very far- 
reaching principles, the Bucero-Calvinistic in Article X 
(on the Lord's Supper) and the synergistic in Art. 
XVIII (on Free- Will), both of which, if they had been 
adopted, would have changed the doctrinal character of 
the Lutheran Church. Melanchthon's Variata proved to 
be an instrument for the introduction of Calvinism into 
Germany (Cf. Chapter II). If it had not been for those 
two anti-Lutheran principles, Melanchthon's altered edi- 
tions would have been welcomed because of their richer 
Scripture ground. Our present Nicene Creed also is an 
entirely different document from the original Nicene 
Creed. 34 Luther himself changed the text of the Smal- 
cald Articles. 35 Because of the serious recognition of 
the Scriptures as normans, Creeds are in principle not 
"unalterable" in the Lutheran Church. Neither are they 

31 Luthers Werke, by Buchwald et al., VII, p. 258. On the 
whole question of the quia and quatenus subscription see the 
article on "Orthodoxie" in R. E. XVI, p. 496, 38; also on "Homi- 
letik" VIII, p. 303, 20. 

32 Niefer, as cited, p. 13. 

33 For an extensive discussion see Zoeckler, Die Augsburgische 
Konfession, pp. 35-74; Kolde's preface to Mueller's Symbolische 
Buecher, pp. 25-32; Neve, Introduction Luth. Symbolics, pp. 91- 
100; also his monography: "Are we Justified in the Distinction 
between an Altered and an Unaltered Augsburg Confession?" 

34 See Harnack in R. E. XI, pp. 12 ff. 

35 Neve, Symbolics, pp. 347 f. 






161 

meant to stand in the way of a further development of 
Christian doctrine. It is felt, however, that such devel- 
opment will be sane only when it takes place on the basis 
of the fundamental principles of the oecumenical and 
the Reformation Creeds. Lutheranism sees in its histor- 
ical Confessions an embodiment of the doctrinal experi- 
ence of the Church of Christ; they are not arbitrary or 
artificial inventions. Liberalism has always wanted to 
erect a fundamentally new faith upon the ruins of the 
historic Creeds. As compared with the Reformed 
Church it may be admitted that Lutheranism is conser- 
vative with regard to adopted Creeds. Her Confessions 
— she prefers the term "Symbols" — are the same in all 
countries; the Reformed "Confessions" are more or less 
national in character (in the various countries the fol- 
lowers of Calvin and Zwingli confess for themselves). 
The Reformed churches have been more subjective in 
their tendencies, which can also be seen in the history of 
their Confessions. Particularly in America they have been 
fruitful in altering their Confessions and in producing 
new creedal standards. 36 But this subjectivism and indi- 
vidualism is no advantage for the Church as a whole. 
Dr. L. F. Gruber, in an excellent article in the "Luther- 
an Church Review" (April 1918, p. 145), remarks: "Re- 
formed Protestantism over-exalts individualism, and 
therefore tends to rationalism and revolutionary radi- 
calism Her very history is the history of sectarian- 
ism. And it seems that in order to survive she must di- 
vide more and more into sects and sectlets by throwing 
off branches, even as a protozoan throws off joints in or- 
der to continue its existence in continual segementation 
and division." Is there one sect in the history of Pro- 
testantism, of which it can be said that it sprung from a 
special principle of Lutheranism? The Schwenkfeldians, 
the Moravians, the Swedenborgians originated on Lu- 
theran territory, but can they be called legitimate 
daughters of Lutheranism? The last mentioned sect is 

36 See the very instructive article on "Protestantismus" by 
Kattenbusch, in R. E. XVI, pp. 173, 5 ff., and 165, 51. 



162 

certainly excluded. The Schwenkfeldians belonged to the 
"Sacramentarians" of the Reformed period. The Mora- 
vians represent a kind of a union between Lutherans 
and Reformed. It is interesting to observe that dis- 
tinguishing trait between Lutherans and Reformed. It 
seems that Lutheranism completely expressed its own 
genius in Symbols, and found no cause for changing 
them, and it is a fact that it produced no more symbols 
after the publication of the Book of Concord in 1580. 
Yet we must insist that in principle these symbols are 
neither "unalterable" nor are they — in principle — the 
last word of Lutheranism as to further creedal expres- 
sion. 

3. An Under -Estimation of the Differences Between 
Lutherans and Reformed. 

In perusing the literature of the German Evangelical 
Synod one receives the impression that the differences 
between the Lutherans and the Reformed, doctrinal and 
practical, are not sufficiently appreciated. 

(A) The difference on the Lord*s Supper is spoken 
of as the only one, and it is in no sense considered as a 
hindrance to union. Schory says: "The Reformed 
Church as well as the Lutheran teaches that the Holy 
Supper is not merely a memorial, but a gift of grace. 
The Confessions of the Reformed prove sufficiently that 
in the holy Supper more is received than just bread and 
wine, namely, the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, of course as a spiritual food and a spiritual drink, 
for the strengthening of the faith and for the confirming 
of the soul in following the Lord. If now the views of 
the two churches differ on the question of 'how* this 
spiritual gift is mediated — and this is admitted— so it 
is to be remarked that here we are confronted with a di- 
vine mystery which neither the Lutherans nor the Re- 
formed have explained nor can explain. Regarding this 
'how' — and here we have the only difficulty — the Evan- 
gelical Church insists upon freedom of conscience for 



163 

the individual. In her confessional paragraph she says : 
"With respect to that how you may hold to the Lutheran 
and to the Reformed conception, according as, in your 
own judgment, the one or the other view approaches 
best the Holy Scriptures ; only do not make your view the 
shibboleth of a division, but grant the other man who 
holds the opposing view, the same liberty, which you 
claim for yourself." (Geschichte, p. 8). But these 
words show an under-estimation of the difference on this 
subject, not to speak of the fundamental difference in 
doctrine and life, of which this one difference is only a 
symptom. 

Let us state as briefly as possible what the Church of 
the Augsburg Confession teaches. Proceeding from a 
realistic conception of the words of Christ when he in- 
stituted the Supper, 37 she teaches that in, with and 
under the Jbread and wine, as vehicles and means, the 
"truly present" Body and Blood of the Saviour are re- 
ceived cum ore by all who eat and drink — for the for- 
giveness of sins and the nourishing of the spiritual life 
of the believer; for judgment to the unbeliever and un- 
worthy. The Church of the Heidelberg Catechism and 
the whole family of Reformed churches, chiefly on the 
basis of a spiritualistic interpretation of the words of 
institution, but also by declaring that earthly, created, 
finite things cannot be used for the communication of 
things heavenly, spiritual and infinite, reject this Lu- 
theran teaching from beginning to end. In describing 
the teaching of the Reformed Church on the Lord's 
Supper we cannot content ourselves with a definition. 

Calvin constructed his symbolical doctrine of the 
Eucharist upon the basis of a number of analogies be- 
tween the Supper (its elements and the use of it) and 
the spiritual features that suggest themselves. 38 We shall 

37 Matthew, Mark and Luke, in their reports, have the identi- 
cal words "this is my body," and Paul's phraseology, while differ- 
ing slightly, reports essentially the same. 

38 The difference between Zwingli and Calvin may be briefly 
stated as follows : Zwingli took bread and wine to be the symbols 
of Christ's Body and Blood; Calvin saw in the eating and drink- 
ing of bread and wine a symbol of a spiritual receiving of Christ's 
Body. 



164 

mention a few of those analogies: (1) As our bodies 
are nourished by bread and wine, so our souls are nour- 
ished by the spiritual influences received from the body 
of Christ. (2) As with our mouth we eat and drink 
bread and wine, so we receive by faith the fruits of 
Christ's suffering. (3) As surely as in the Supper we 
receive the visible elements, so surely indeed was 
Christ's Body given for our redemption on the cross and 
is again given to the believers as a seal for the forgive- 
ness of sins in connection with (cum) the sacramental 
rite. 39 The signifying features in the rite (as for in- 
stance also the breaking of bread) are emphasized 
everywhere by Calvin and by the Reformed theolo- 
gians, 40 and it is in the system of these analogies that 
the fundamental doctrine and the design of the Lord's 
Supper is seen. 41 It is not out of place to make use of 
such analogies in preaching, when the aim is to bring out 
the devotional and the liturgically significant features by 
which the participants in the holy Supper may be 
spiritually helped as long as the fundamental conception 
is in harmony with Scripture and with the doctrinal ex- 
perience of the Church. This has always been done by 
the conservative teachers of the Church, by church- 
fathers such as Irenaeus, 42 and also by the Lutheran dog- 
maticians. 43 The Lutherans also believe in the memorial 
and in the seal, but they cannot agree when such a sys- 
tem of analogies is used as the basis for a spiritualistic 
interpretation of the words of institution. This method 
of arriving at a doctrine of the Lord's Supper left Cal- 
vin essentially in harmony with Zwingli, whose concep- 
tion of the Eucharist as a memorial he merely supple- 

39 What Calvin meant when he spoke of a receiving of Christ's 
Body we shall see a little later. 

40 Calvini Institutiones IV, 17. See also Chas. Hodge, Syste- 
matic Theology III, pp. 611-650. 

41 An old Reformed writer, Amandus Polanus, in "Partitiones 
Theologicae" (1600), lib. 1, p. 225, expressed the teaching of his 
church correctly when he stated: "Sacramenti forma interna ac 
essentialis est pulcherrima ilia analogia et similitudo signi et sig- 
nificati. 

42 See W. Rohnert, Die Lehre von den Gnadenmitteln, pp. 

151 ff- 

43 Cf. Joh. Gerhard, Loci Theologici, XXII, V, 20. 



165 

merited by adding the conception of the seal or pledge of 
the thing signified. 

Here may be the place for a few words on the ques- 
tion what Calvin meant when he said that in the Supper 
the believers, that is, the elect, receive the Body and 
Blood of Christ. 44 He even spoke of the substance of 
Christ (materiam out substantiam) , 45 But all such ex- 
pressions are not to be taken in the sense of Art. X of the 
Augsburg Confession and the rest of the Lutheran Sym- 
bols. The spiritual food, to Calvin, is really not the Body 
of Christ as His glorified humanity, but merely some- 
thing that Christ, by giving His Body and Blood, did and 
suffered for us. 46 Again he says: "From the hidden 
fountain of divinity, life is, in a wonderful manner, in- 
fused into the flesh of Christ, and thence flows out to 
us." 47 Hodge (111,628) calls Calvin's conception "a 
dynamic presence." Others have called it a "virtual 
presence." But it is a presence fundamentally different 
from the real presence of Christ's glorified humanity in 
the Supper, which Luther taught. 48 Hodge remarks that 
the "almost universal answer of the Reformed Confes- 
sions" is that the communicant receives and appropri- 
ates "the sacrificial virtue or effects of the death of 
Christ on the Cross." 49 Calvin contended with great de- 
termination for two statements as being fundamental: 
"(1) that believers receive elsewhere by faith all they 
receive at the Lord's table; and (2) that we Christians 
receive nothing above or beyond that which was received 
by the saints under the Old Testament, before the glori- 

44 Consensus Tigurinus, Art. XVIII, Inst. IV, 17, 9. 

45 Institutiones, book IV, chapt. 14, sec. 16; cf. IV, 17, n, 24. 

46 Inst. IV, 17, 1, 5, 9, and at many other places. 

47 Calvin's Confessionis Capitum Expositio, in Niemeyer's col- 
lection of Reformed Confessions, pp. 213 f. ; cf. Inst. IX, 17, 9. 

48 Cf. Calvin's Secunda Defensio against Westphal, p. 896: "I 
say that Christ's Body is effectively exhibited in the Supper, non 
naturaliter, sed secundum virtutem, non secundum substantiam." 
Christ's Body is regarded as confined to the Right Hand of God in 
heaven. This is the general conception of the Reformed Confes- 
sions. Cf. Consensus Tigurinus 21, 196; Confessio Scotica 21, 353; 
Confessio Helvetica 21, 522. 

49 Systematic Theology III, 645 f. 



166 



fied Christ had any existence." 50 He accepted the 
language of the words of institution, particularly the 
terms "Body" and "eating", but he reinterpreted these, 
on the basis of his analogies, so as to stand for and to 
mean Christ's life and suffering which we appropriate 
through faith for our salvation. 51 In other words, Cal- 
vin saw in the Sacrament merely the promise or the 
Gospel certified. 52 The Sacraments were to him "a peda- 
gogy of signs for a weak faith." In the conception of 
Calvin they work merely through the psychological im- 
pression of a symbolical act. There is more than in the 
conception of Zwingli, because of the emphasis upon the 
sacramental action as the pledge and the seal, but both 
agree in the symbolical conception. 

The teaching of the Lutheran Church is fundamen- 
tally different. We have expressed it above and may ex- 
press it once more in slightly different phraseology: In- 
dependent of man's spiritual condition — strong faith, 
weak faith, conscious or unconscious faith, indifference 
or even frivolous unbelief — purely because of the divine 
institution, bread and wine, in the sacramental action, 
are the actual vehicles for the communication of Christ's 
glorified Body to all who eat and drink in the Supper: 
for the nourishment of the spiritual life of all the spiri- 
tually hungry, but for the condemnation of the unre- 
penting and unbelieving. In the view of the Lutheran 
Church, the mystery does not lie in the doctrinal differ- 
ence between Luther and Calvin, i. e., in the question 
whether the realistic or the spiritualistic interpretation 
of the words of institution renders the correct concep- 
tion; no, the mystery is to be sought in the unio sacra- 
mentalis itself, i. e., in the question how bread and wine 
in the Supper can be vehicles for the heavenly gift so 



50 Hodge, as cited, III, 647. 

51 Cf. Institutiones IV, 17, 5. 

52 Institutiones IV, 17, 14; cf. English translation by J. Allen, 
H> P- 538: Iterum repeto quum coena nihil aliud sit quam conspi- 
cua testificatio, quae Jo. 6 habetur, nempe Christum esse paneni 
vitae, qui e coelo descendit, panem visibilem intercedere oportet, 

quo spiritualis ille figuretur. See also Stahl p. 86. 



167 

that "in, with and under" these earthly means (materia 
terrestris) Christ's glorified humanity (materia coeles- 
tis) can be communicated. Before this mystery the 
Lutheran Confessions simply say that God can do what 
He promises. They believe that in the Sacrament a 
special gift is received, namely, a spiritual food which, 
in God's will and power, is substantialized in Christ's 
glorified humanity and communicated as such. The Sac- 
raments work different from the Word. The Word 
works by an appeal to the faculties of mind and soul, by 
convincing the hearer of sin and judgment and by ac- 
quainting him with the grace of God in Christ. In the 
preparatory service, as in the liturgy expressing the 
sacramental action, there is much of this same work of 
the Word, which is to aid us to become worthy communi- 
cants so that we may receive the blessing. But the spe- 
cific work of the Sacrament as such is different from that 
of the Word. It communicates the special gift in an im- 
mediate way, not through the actions of our soul, but 
rather in the way the Holy Ghost was poured out upon 
the disciples when they were in a state of waiting, after 
the preparation of the heart had taken place through the 
preaching of the Word. The work of the Word is in- 
separable from the Sacrament, but not identical with it, 
the same as that outpouring of the Spirit was not identi- 
cal with the preaching of Peter that had preceeded. The 
gift of Christ's glorified humanity in the Sacrament is to 
the worthy communicant a seal upon the forgiveness of 
sins. It nourishes the divine life, it works a longing 
after God, a stronger faith, the gift of perseverance, an 
illumination of his understanding. The new man is 
strengthened and more and more fashioned after the 
divine image. This is not the ex opere operato teaching 
of the Roman Catholic Church. Rome says that the 
Sacrament brings the blessing merely by the administra- 
tion (provided a mortal sin does not stand in the way) ; 
the Lutheran Church teaches that the condition for re- 
ceiving the blessing is repentance and faith worked 
through the Word. As long as this is regarded as the 



168 

condition , and the Word as a means for working re- 
pentance and faith is held to be inseparable from the 
Sacrament, the charge of a magical working is without 
foundation. 

The teachings of the Lutheran and of the Reformed 
Church on the Lord's Supper are exclusive of each other. 
It is true, Luther never wrote against Calvin. But that 
was because during the lifetime of Luther Calvin's posi- 
tion on the Supper was not clearly known. 53 But Luther, 
after all, practically fought Calvinism when he took his 
uncompromising attitude against the mediating teaching 
of Bucer, to which Melanchthon had begun to incline. 5 * 
When this mediating interpretation of the Real Presence 
was openly expressed in the articles of faith drawn by 
Bucer and Melanchthon for the introduction of the Re- 
formation into the city of Cologne, Luther realizing that 
the end of his life was drawing near, felt it to be his duty 
to let the world know that he had never departed from 
the position of a Real Presence, and, therefore, published 
(1544) his last Confession of the Supper. 55 Calvin also 
knew that his difference from Luther was exclusive and 
fundamental for the life of the Church. He knew that 
he was essentially in harmony with Zwingli and Oeco- 
lampadius. 50 The attitude of Calvin toward the Luther- 
an conception of the Supper can be seen in the fact that 
though usually moderate in controversy, he indulged 
in the most severe expressions when he came to discuss 
the Lutheran teaching of a Real Presence. This doctrine 
was to him utterly absurd, a papistic invention, and one 



53 Cf. Koestlin-Kawerau, Martin Luther, vol. II, p. 577; Hering 
Geschichte der kirchlichen Unionsversuche I, 196; Our discussions, 
p. 22, Lutheran Quarterly, Oct., 1918, p. 557. 

54 Cf. De Wette, Briefe Luthers IV, 557 f., Koestlin-Kawerau, as 
cited, II, 329, 335. See the text of the Wittenberg Concord on the 
Lord's Supper in Corpus Reformatorum III, pp. 375 ff. ; English in 
Jacobs' Book of Concord, II, 235. 

55 Kurtz Bekenntnis D. Martin Luther's vom Heiligen Sakra- 
ment. Erl. Ed. of Luther's Works XXXII, pp. 379 ff. Cf. Our dis- 
cussions pp. 13 ff. Luth. Quarterly, Jan'y 1918, p. in. 

56 See the Consensus Tigurinus and his letter to the Swiss 
churches prefixed to his Consensionis Capitum Expositio, in Nie- 
meyer's Collectio Confessionum, Leipzig 1840, 3 201. 



169 

of the grossest among all errors, explainable to his mind 
only by the influence of Satan. 57 

(B) Baptism. We cannot agree with so many writ- 
ers of the German Evangelical Synod when they treat 
the difference on the Lord's Supper as unessential. 
Neither are they correct when they treat it as practi- 
cally the only hindrance in the way of union. The diff- 
erence on the Lord's Supper is merely the symptom of a 
general fundamental difference. 58 There is the same 
fundamental difference with regard to Baptism and the 
means of grace in general. Baptism is to the Reformed 
Confessions a ceremony for the initiation into the 
Church, 59 a testimony of the believer's confession before 
men, 60 a symbol of cleansing from sin and as such, that 
is as a symbol, an assurance of forgiveness of sins for 
the elect. 61 Graul, paraphrasing the Heidelberg Cate- 
chism on this subject, writes: "Baptism is merely a 
figure, that like as the filthiness of the body is washed 
away with water, so also our sins are washed away by 
the blood and Spirit of Christ (which are really the ac- 
tive causes), but it is also a seal of the thing signified, 
that, as certainly as the one is done, the other takes 
place; it (Baptism) does not, therefore, effect regenera- 
tion, but is a mere figure and seal of it." 62 Here again 
the doctrine rests upon the analogies between the con- 
stituent parts of the rite and its spiritual suggestions. 
It is spiritualistic in character, and as an ordinance and 
in its spiritual significance, the Sacrament of Baptism 
is on a level with circumcision in the Old Testament. 
John's Baptism is regarded as being essentially the 

57 Calvin's Institutiones IV, 17, 19: "Horribile fascino satan de- 
mentavit eorum mentes. Cf. English edition by J. Allen, p. 543; 
cf. 542, 551. See also Wangemann, Una Sancta I, book 5, pp. 167 ff. 

58 Compare what we wrote p. 30, Luth. Quarterly, Oct., 1918, 
P- 564. 

59 Second Helvetic Confession 20, 517. Cf. Calvini Institutiones 
IV, is, 1. 

60 Institutiones IV, 14, 13. 

61 Institutiones IV, 15, 1-6. Catechismus Palatinus. 

62 See English translation by Martens, after Seeberg's prepa- 
ration of Graul's book for the twelfth edition; cf. Calvini Insti- 
tutiones IV, 15, 14. 



170 

same as the Baptism instituted by Christ. 63 Baptism, 
then, works merely by the 'pedagogy of the rite. The 
forgiveness of sins is in no wise received through the 
sacramental act, that is, through the water in connection 
with the Word, as the Lutheran Church teaches ; for the 
application of water is only a symbol through which a 
certain assurance of forgiveness is illustrated and re- 
ceived, provided the recipient has turned in repentance 
and faith to God or is doing so, under the act of Bap- 
tism, or will do it later, and so receives the Baptism of 
the Holy Spirit. To Calvin, the efficient factor is not 
Baptism, but the Word which works, not through Bap- 
tism, but, at best, in connection with it. Baptism is, 
therefore, not "necessary for salvation" as the Augsburg 
Confession (Art IX) holds. It is not a real means of 
grace, and offers no real assurance of grace. Here again, 
as in the Lord's Supper, the difference is fundamental 
and exclusive. 

Martensen says: "Calvin's doctrine (of the means of 
grace) rests upon a dualism distinguishing between the 
kingdom of grace and that of nature, between heaven 
and earth, Spirit and body. 64 The finite is regarded as 
incapable of the infinite. The divine is not allowed to 
combine vitally with the human. It is insisted that sal- 
vation comes from God direct, not by any mediation of 
divinely appointed acts of the Church. The Sacraments 
are, therefore, empty signs, empty ceremonies which re- 
ceive a content only in so far as the faith of the predes- 
tinated or eternal election is positing into them for him 
as an individual. In fundamental opposition to this 
view the Lutheran Church is established upon the rela- 
tion of a res in re (one element in the other as opposed 
to a side by side relation) between the heavenly and the 
earthly, in order to communicate to man the grace of 
God. Lutheranism does not want to overlook the fact 
that man as an object of God's saving grace is a being of 
spirit and of body. The influences of his spiritual life 
are conducted through the channels of his senses. For 

63 Institutiones IV, 14, 23; 15, 9. 

64 Christian Dogmatics, Sec. 263. 



171 

this reason God has chosen the audible Word, particular- 
ly the preaching of the Gospel (Augsb'g. Conf. V) as a 
means of communicating the Spirit and His saving in- 
fluences, and also the Sacraments in which the gift of 
His grace is communicated to man through the elements 
of His creation. 65 

(C) The Word has been mentioned as a means of 
grace, and many writers of our symbolical literature in- 
sist that even here the difference between Lutherans and 
Reformed may be observed. Graul-Seeberg 06 says : "The 
difference between the Lutheran and the Reformed Con- 
fessions begins already in the doctrine concerning the 
Word. The Reformed Confession makes it a guide to 
eternal life ; but the Lutheran Confession, in accordance 
with Scripture, makes it a real means of grace, which 
not only shows where to find the treasure, but also im- 
parts it, for it is a power unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), a 
seed of regeneration (1 Peter 1:23), full of Spirit and 
life (John 6:63). The Spirit does not hover over the 
Word, but comes to us in and with the Word." To the 
Lutheran Church, the Word of God as an embodiment of 
the eternal Word is a living vital truth carrying the di- 
vine power within itself, because it is always in a union 
with the Spirit. In the conception of the Reformed, who 
view the Word of God largely as a book of laws, contain- 
ing certain truths and observances that are imposed 
upon man by God, the Holy Spirit is separated from it, 
The Holy Spirit may or may not accompany the Word. 67 
That peculiar distinction between the external and the 
inner Word appeared as an objection to the Lutheran 
conception of the means of grace right from the be- 

65 We refer to the instructive sketch of M. Reu, Die Gnaden- 
mittellehre (Chicago, 111., Wartburg Publishing House, 1917), par- 
ticularly pp. 64-67; cf. p. 5. 

66 Distinctive Doctrines, p. 152. 

67 For a scientific review of the matter see J. A. W. Haas in an 
article in the Lutheran Church Review, Jan'y, 1919, p. 5 f. ; also H. 
Schmidt, Handbuch der Symbolik, pp. 367 ff. 



172 

ginning in the writings of Zwingli and Oecolampad. 68 
It may be objected that this difference on the Word does 
not appear so much in present-day discussions, and no 
doubt many preachers and writers of the Reformed 
churches are not conscious of such difference. Yet the 
real character of a church appears in the periods of its 
doctrinal conflicts; in times of confessional indifference 
the true nature of the Church is always beclouded. 69 

Calvin's doctrine of predestination is inseparably 
linked up with this distinction between the external and 
the inner Word. God "inclines the hearts of those whom 
he has predestinated to everlasting life to faith, through 
His Word and Spirit; whilst He calls all others only ex- 
teiinally through the Word, but does not accompany it 
with His Spirit to make it effective in their hearts." 70 
The Lutheran Church cannot agree to such a distinction 
between the external and the inner Word. It destroys 
the universality of grace and makes salvation through 
Christ uncertain. If that distinction is to be accepted, 
then the efficient promise of the Gospel is not the foun- 
dation of hope for the individual Christian, but that 
foundation is a secret election (Calvinism), or it is the 
subjective experience of a revival (Armianism). 

It needs to be seen that the differences which we have 
reviewed all point to a fundamental difference which 
permeates the whole conception of the means of grace. 
Luther stated the fact when he said to Zwingli : "Ye 
have another spirit than we." The investigations of Prof. 

68 Zwinglii Commentarius de Vera et Falsa Religione, Opera 
ed. Schuler et Schulthess VII, pp. 131 seq. 138. Cf. Luther's Works 
(Walch), Schwaebisches Syngramma, XX, p. 691, Oecolampad's 
answer ibidem XX, pp. 769, 770. Cf. Luther's Grosses Bekenntnis 
vom Abendmahl XX, 1304. While Calvin expresses himself with 
some caution upon this subject, he is in harmony with the earlier 
leaders of the Reformed Church. Cf. Institutiones IV, 16, 19. Hel- 
vetica Posterior, p. 468. 

69 See the fine observations on this matter by Rudelbach, Re- 
formation, Luthertum und Union, pp. 185 f. 

70 Distinctive Doctrines, p. 151, with references to the Canons 
of Dort, chapt. I, Art. VII. Westminster Confession, chapt. X. 
The Consensus Genevensis on the "Eternal Election of God." Rep- 
resentative Reformed writers accept this doctrine (cf. C. Hodge, 
Systematic Theology III, x p. 483). 



173 

von Schubert 71 have shown us that it is a mistake to 
take these words of Luther as an expression of unkind- 
ness to his opponent. His refusal of the hand of fellow- 
ship and to commune where they had failed to arrive at 
a confessional agreement was to him a matter of con- 
science. We know, from letters to his wife and to others, 
that Luther was in a peaceful attitude of mind when he 
said those much-quoted words. At the close of that 
colloquy he was very hopeful of a union. And yet, in his 
refusal, he spoke as a prophet. He felt that a fundamen- 
tally different "spirit" stood in the way. History has 
proved that he was right. The negotiations with Bucer, 
the confessional development of Calvin, the Union move- 
ments of the seventeenth century, the history of Protes- 
tantism up to this day have all shown that there is a 
difference of spirit that cannot be overcome. Each side 
has developed its own theology, its own confessional and 
practical traditions, and an altogether different church 
life. One cannot see how two churches constructed upon 
principles so opposed to each other can enter into an 
organic union. 

4. Public Teaching of the German Evangelical Synod. 

A church body establishing itself upon the Union 
principle is confronted with a peculiar task when it 
comes to the creation of an official church literature. 
The conflicts in the Prussian Church Union were for 
many years about the Agenda, i. e., the liturgical forms 
for church worship and for ministerial acts. This 
Agenda aimed to adapt itself to Lutherans and Reform- 
ed alike. 72 While the form of distribution in the Lord's 
Supper did not contradict the Lutheran conception 
neither did it give expression to it. 73 In 1895 the matter 
was finally settled by publishing a new Agenda with 
parallel forms for the administration of the Sacraments. 
There was a Lutheran form for the Lutherans, a Re- 
formed form for the Reformed congregations and also 

71 Zeitschrift fuer Kirchengeschichte, Gotha, 1908, p. 354. 

72 Chapter V, p. 119. Lutheran Quarterly, Oct. 1919, p. 534. 

73 Cf. p. 127. Lutheran Quarterly, as cited, p. 542. 



174 



a Union form for the congregations that had actually 
joined the Union. 74 With regard to the catechism, the 
matter is simple in a purely conf ederative union. In the 
Prussian Church Union, which in the central provinces 
and in the East is overwhelmingly Lutheran, the cate- 
chism of Luther is used, and the Reformed use the 
Heidelberg. In the Rhine Provinces, where the Reformed 
Church is strong, either the Heidelberg or a Union cate- 
chism is in use, and Union catechisms are found in An- 
halt, Hesse, Nassau, Waldeck, Hanau, Baden and in the 
Palatinate on the Rhine. 75 The difficulty comes in the 
case of an absorptive Union where Lutherans and Re- 
formed are to be united into one confessional Union. 
Here the question arises whether the teaching is to rest 
upon the consensus of the Lutheran and the Reformd 
Confessions. 

Much has been written on the consensus and the dis- 
sensus. 76 A consensus of the Lutheran and the Reform- 
ed Confessions on the doctrine of the means of grace is 
non-existing, and the dissensus in this very important 
sphere of Christian teaching extends to many other doc- 
trines (the person of Christ, election, Church, Church 
government, Church service, absolution, etc.) There is 
less writing on these matters to-day as compared with 
the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries and the first 
half of the nineteenth century, simply because the prob- 
lem has been thoroughly and exhaustively ventilated and 
the lesson has been learned that a doctrinal union be- 
tween Lutheranism and Calvinism cannot be looked for. 

The Union movements of the seventeenth and the nine- 
teenth centuries have impressed their historical lessons 
indelibly upon the historically intelligent theologians of 
the leading churches. In the middle of the nineteenth 
century the problem of a doctrinal union was still on 
trial, and the great theologians of the mediating school 

74 See p. 137, Luth. Quarterly, p. 552. 

75 See p. 138 ; in Lutheran Quarterly, Oct. 1919, p. 553. 

76 See the very instructive chapter on this subject by Stahl, 
Lutherische Kirche und Union, pp. 50-80. 



175 

in Germany — the so-called consensus theologians — were 
hopeful of its realization. Prof. J. Mueller at Halle and 
Prof. I. C. Nitzsch at Bonn and later at Berlin labored 
for a crystallization of the consensus and for an incor- 
poration of the same into a public confession upon which 
the Union might establish itself. In that draft for an 
ordination formula, which was presented by Nitzsch to 
the General Synod in Berlin (1846), we have the tangi- 
ble result of that movement. 77 But this "Nicenum of 
the nineteenth century", or "Nitzschenum," as it was 
called, 78 failed of adoption. It is exceedingly interesting 
to observe that all this took place at a time when creed- 
making on the basis of the "fundamentals" as contrasted 
with the "non-fundamentals" was in the air. It was in 
1845, in a convention at Liverpool, in England, where 
the nine points constituting the doctrinal basis for the 
Evangelical Alliance had been drafted. General Super- 
intendent W. Hoffman (Berlin) and Tholuck (Halle) 
were present. And it was in those years when in the old 
General Synod of the Lutheran Church in America the 
men of "American Lutheranism," under the special lead 
of Dr. S. S. Schmucker (together with Drs. Kurtz and 
Sprecher), were at work to create a symbol for a "Lu- 
theranism modified by the Puritan element," which, 
finally, 1853, appeared in the "Definite Synodical Plat- 
form." 79 But this undertaking also failed. The failing 
of the consensus at that convention in Berlin (1846) 
marks the change in the Prussian Church Union from 
an absorptive to a confederative Union. 80 And it was 
the failure of the Definite Platform theology in the old 
General Synod of the Lutheran Church in America, 
which established the English Lutheran synods in 
America upon the historic Lutheranism of the Unaltered 
Augsburg Confession. 

77 See p. 131 and the foot notes. 

78 Kurtz, Church History (English, 1888), Sec. 193, 3. 

79 Cf. Neve, Brief History of the Lutheran Church in America 
(second ed-, pp. 122-28; also A. Spaeth in R. E. XVII, 665; XIV, 165. 

80 Cf. p. 132, Luth. Quarterly, Oct., 1919, p. 547. 



176 

After this discussion, in which it has been our inten- 
tion to bring together for easy review some lessons of 
history, we shall examine the official teaching of the Ger- 
man Evangelical Synod. 

Our task is to be undertaken on the basis of the fol- 
lowing literature: The Evangelical Catechism, revised 
edition of 1896 (the same in German on parallel pages). 
Next comes the interpretation of this catechism by D. 
Irion: "Der Evangelische Katechismus, aus der Schrift 
und Biblischen Geschichte erklaert" (a book of 453 
pages). Herausgegeben von der Evangelischen Synode 
von Nord-Amerika (1897). The author of this inter- 
pretation of the catechism has his heart in the Lutheran 
dogma, and aims to express it to the limit of consistency 
with the official position of his synod. This can be seen 
especially in the discussion of the Sacraments in gen- 
eral and of Baptism in particular. On the Lord's Sup- 
per the position is not quite so clear (cf. p. 356), and in 
the appreciation of the difference between the Lutheran 
and the Reformed conception there is the Union feature 
(p. 364). This catechism, however, while published by 
the synod, 81 seems not to be regarded as the official or the 
recognized teaching of the synod, for in the preface by 
the Literary Committee we see that the individual diff- 
erence of this exposition of the catechism from its pre- 
decessor (written by Andreas Irion, father of the pre- 
sent author) is justified on the basis that "such differ- 
ence within the agreement on the fundamentals is legiti- 
mate in the Evangelical Church." This has reference 
not only to the form, but also to the doctrinal conception. 
The aim of the synod is always to avoid a confessional 
expression on the matters of disagreement between Lu- 
therans and Reformed, and to appeal to Scripture with- 
out commitment to a definite interpretation. See our 
discussion in this chapter, sub III, 2: "Scripture versus 
Confession." Another important source for learning 

8i On the title page we read: "Herausgegeben von der Evange- 
lischen Synode von N. A." 



177 

the public teaching of this body is the "Evangelical 
Fundamentals (part two), Evangelical Belief and Doc- 
trine, or the Evangelical Catechism Explained for use 
in Catechetical Instruction, the Sunday School and the 
Home" (1916). This little book of 153 pages, prefaces 
itself as "a somewhat abridged translation" (by J. H. 
H.) of pr. D. Irion's "Erklaerung des Evangelischen 
Katechismus." In some characteristic omissions and ad- 
ditions the tendency of this book appears to be to tone 
down the more Lutheran position of Dr. Irion (cf. pp. 
141-143). There is, however, nothing to indicate the 
official character of this compend on "Evangelical Belief 
and Doctrine" beyond the fact of its being in the main 
an abridged translation of Dr. Irion's work. 82 Another 
source for ascertaining the synod's doctrinal position is 
the "Evangelical Book of Worship, published by the Ger- 
man "Evangelical Synod of North America (1916)." 
This work of 299 pages comprises the liturgical formulas 
and the forms for ministerial acts. Here we are in a 
special sense upon official ground, because the book was 
authorized by the "General Conference of the German 
Evangelical Synod of N. A. at Louisville, Ky., Sept. 
1913." Let us now see how, in this literature, the synod 
has dealt with the matters of doctrinal conflict between 
the Lutheran and the Reformed Church. 

(A) The arrangement of the Catechism. Like Luther's 
Catechism, and different from the Heidelberg, the cate- 
chism of the German Evangelical Synod begins with the 
Ten Commandments, but in following the Old Testament 
text, after the manner of the Heidelberg Catechism, a 
second commandment is inserted which forbids the wor- 
shipping of God in any image. Thus it is the third com- 
mandment that deals with the name of God, the fourth 
with the Sabbath, and so on up to the Lutheran eighth 
commandment which now becomes the ninth. Then 
the Lutheran ninth and tenth commandments are taken 



82 On the history of the official catechism in the German Evan- 
gelical Synod see Braendele in R. E. XIV, 179, 33; 180, 3 ff.; 180, 
3 ff.; Muecke, p. 117; Schory, p. 105 ff. 



178 

together into one as the tenth commandment. Luther's 
interpretation of each commandment is displaced by 
other words. Part II of the catechism on "The Christian 
Faith" interprets on the basis of the Apostles' Creed, 
and makes use of Luther's words as a summing up of 
the interpretation. Part III on "Prayer" uses the peti- 
tions of Luther's Catechism. Parts IV and V, on Bap- 
tism and the Lord's Supper, do not employ the words of 
Luther. 

(B) Doctrinal Features. 

(a) On the Christian Sunday. Interpreting the 
fourth commandment, the "Fundamentals" (p. 11) offer 
the following: "The Christian Sunday, however, is a 
different institution governed by a different spirit. 
There is no command in the New Testament to keep the 

first day in the week or any other day of the week 

Christians are to observe the day not because the law of 
God or man requires them to do so, but because they feel 
the need of withdrawing from worldly employments to 
worship God and nurture their spiritual life. Therefore 
real Christians will not need special Sunday laws or or- 
dinances, nor will they need to care whether the last or 
the first day of the week is observed." Generally speak- 
ing, this agrees with Lutheran teaching. 

(b) On Christ's descent to hell we read in the brief 
catechism of the synod, p. 34: "Christ descended into 
hell to triumph over the dominion of darkness and there 
to reveal Himself as the Redeemer of mankind." Irion 
(p. 195) and his translator in the "Fundamentals" (p. 
67), accepting this definition, step into the discussion by 
saying: "The descending into hell, i. e., into the place 
of the dead, marks the beginning of Christ's exaltation", 
etc. This differs from the Reformed teaching in the 
Heidelberg Catechism, question 44. 

(c) On the person of Christ. In question 83 of the 
synod's brief catechism not only but also by Irion (pp. 
204f.) and by the "Fundamentals", (p. 71) the doctrine 



179 

of the communicatio idiomatum on the basis of the per- 
sonal union of the two natures in Christ is evaded. Also 
in the outline on Dogmatics ("Evangelische Glaubens- 
lehre") by Prof. W. Becker, D.D., of the Eden Theolo- 
gical Seminary, no teaching on this subject is offered 
(cf. p, 56) ; only a historical review of the history of 
dogma is given (p. 61 ff.), and the matter is dismissed 
with the remark: "The whole orthodox construction of 
the doctrine of the person of Christ dissolved itself in 
the time of rationalism" (p. 63). Here we remark: 
While it is true that the details of Lutheran Christology 
on the relation of the two natures in Christ are of a later 
date (Art. VIII in the Formula of Concord), yet it 
should not be overlooked that Art. Ill of the Augsb'g 
Confession takes special pains to reject Nestorianism, 83 
and thus to draw the consequences from the perichoresis 
or the mutual permeation of the natures in Christ as 
confessed in the Chalcedonian Creed. The religious in- 
terest of Luther in the unio personalis and the communi- 
catio idiomatum was not merely the defence of the Real 
Presence, but the full value of the atonement through 
Christ. 84 In the conflict between the Lutherans and Re- 
formed on this subject there was a religious interest 
which cannot now be ignored. Also Prof. Becker feels 
that something essential is involved when he remarks 
with regard to the ancient dogma of the mutual permea- 
tion of the natures nr Christ: "Eine Weiterbildung dieser 
Theorie, die von wesentlicher Bedeutung gewesen waere, 
erfolgte im Mittelalter nicht." 85 But that development 
was offered by the Reformation age. While the deliver- 
ances of the Lutheran and the Reformed Confessions 
may bear the marks of theological thought as contrasted 
with religion, yet we cannot evade the fact that in con- 

83 Note the words : "There are two natures, the divine and the 
human, inseparably conjoined in one person, one Christ, true God 

and true man He also (namely, this one Christ) descended 

into hell rose ascended that He might sit and 

forever reign, and have dominion and sanctify," etc. 

84 See Plitt, Einleitung in die Augustana II, 79-102, p. 95. Cf. 
Neve, Introduction to Lutheran Symbolics, pp. 130-34. 

85 Glaubenslehre, p. 62. 



180 

fessional expression there cannot always be a clear-cut 
separation between theology and religion: the one is 
needed to express the other. 

(d) The treatment of Baptism in the catechism as 
interpreted by Irion and also by the "Fundamentals" is 
Lutheran. A Sacrament is denned as "a holy ordinance 
instituted by Christ Himself, in which by visible signs 
and means He imparts and maintains the new life." 86 
In the "Fundamentals" we read on the Sacraments in 
general: "But these visible signs are more than signs, 
they are also means. In the Sacraments we have not 
only outward signs showing what Christ intends to do 
inwardly, not only a seal or pledge that he is actually 
present in a spiritual way ; these outward things are also 
the means through which He imparts the spiritual gifts 
of His grace, they are the vehicles of His spiritual bless- 
ings" (p. 119. Irion, p. 324). Again: "As long as we 
dwell in the body, the body is the natural and only chan- 
nel through which the spiritual life is reached, just as 
we can only receive the Word of God by means of the 
bodily senses and their organs. Through the Sacra- 
ments God seeks to act upon the body for the sake of in- 
fluencing the spiritual life." 87 On Baptism then is said: 
"Holy Baptism is the Sacrament by which the triune 
God imparts the new life to man", etc. Offense should 
not be taken at the word "imparts;" it is even stronger 
than the term used in Art. IX of the Augsburg Confes- 
sion: "Through Baptism is offered the grace of God." 
The Latin is offeratur. As a translation of this term the 
German edition of the Evangelical Catechism seems to 
have chosen the word dargereicht. (Die Taufe ist das- 
jenige Sacrament, durch welches dem Menschen das 
neue Leben dargereicht wird.) It is to be remembered, 

86 Small Catechism, p. 58. Irion, p. 324 ff. Fundamentals p. 
118 ff. 

87 Fundamentals p. 119. Irion p. 352. These few words express 
a fundamentally Lutheran principle, and if adhered to consistently, 
not only with regard to Baptism, but also in conception of the 
Lord's Supper, would themselves bring the German Evangelical 
Synod and the Lutheran Church together in a true union. 



181 

however, that Art IX of the Augsburg Confession does 
not aim at formulating a complete doctrine of Baptism. 
In Art. II of the Confession salvation is made depend- 
ent upon being "bom again through Baptism and the 
Holy Ghost." Art. IX takes care of the specifically Lu- 
theran conception by the phrase "received into His 
grace" (recipiantur in gratiam Dei) : Baptism is an ob- 
jective act of God where man is passive. Melanchthon 
says in the Apology: "Baptism is a work, not that we 
offer to God, but in which Gad baptizes us."( 18). And 
so Luther, referring to Titus 3 :5, calls it a "washing of 
regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost." But all 
this is brought out in unambiguous teaching in the 
"Erklaerung" of Dr. Irion and also in the "Fundamen- 
tals." We read: "Holy Baptism is more than a mere 
symbol of the cleansing power of the Holy Spirit. The 
Baptism of John was such a symbol, but the Sacrament 
of Holy Baptism was needed to impart the Holy Spirit 
and with it the new life, Acts 19:1-7." Again "Holy 
Baptism imparts what we could not otherwise obtain, 
the new life." 88 On question 127 there is an evident de- 
viation of the "Fundamentals" from the decidedly Lu- 
theran teaching of Dr. Irion. He had formulated the 
subject for discussion as follows: "The divine gift of 
grace is comprehended in and connected with the 
water," etc. His intention is to discuss the sacramental 
union between the materia terrestris and the materia 
coelestis. He calls the visible element (connected with 
the Word) not only a "sign", but also a "means" and 
"vehicle" (Mittel und Traeger) for communicating the 

88 Fundamentals, p. 122. Irion, pp. 329, 333. This is different 
from the teaching of the Heidelberg Catechism in questions 69, 72, 
73. See our quotation from Graul, sub III, 3- In our judgment, 
the thought in Dr. Irion's "Erklaerung" (pp. 330, 338) and in the 
"Fundamentals" (pp. 122, 123, 127, 129) that is Baptism only the 
"seed-germ" of regeneration is planted has been stressed a little 
too much. It is not correct to say that under all circumstances 
"baptized persons must be converted before they can become 
really regenerated." We know, of course, that in the relation of 
regeneration to conversion and on regeneration to Baptism there 
are various modes of expression. Cf. the article "Wiedergeburt" 
in Meusel, Kirchl. Handlexikon VII, pp. 2140 ff. 



182 

spiritual gift, i. e., the new life and the forgiveness of 
sins. He quotes Augustine's definition: "The Word is 
added to the element and so the Sacrament comes into ex- 
istence" and also adds the words in Luther's Catechism: 
"It is not the water, indeed, that produces these effects, 
but the Word of God, which accompanies and is connect- 
ed with the water, and our faith which relies on the 
Word of God connected with the water," etc. The "Fun- 
damentals", aiming to conform to the material of the 
synod's brief catechism under the question "what is the 
visible sign in Baptism?" omits (p. 125) the references 
to Augustine and Luther. The water is called "only a 
visible sign for the gift of God," a "symbol of the be- 
ginning of the new life," and the terms "means" and 
"vehicle" (Traeger), which are employed by Irion have 
here been altogether eliminated. Yet on pp. 118 and 
119, in dealing with the Sacraments in general, we see 
that the "Fundamentals" also speak of "means through 
which He (Christ) imparts the spiritual gifts of grace," 
these means being called "the vehicles of His spiritual 
blessings," and of Baptism in particular it is said that 
"God gives in and with the water the gift of spiritual 
life." Is it merely to avoid repetition and because of the 
narrower scope of the question (127) that these devia- 
tions were decided on? 

It is the appreciation of Infant Baptism in the mean- 
ing of the Lutheran Church, together with the practice 
of confirmation preceeded by a thorough religious in- 
struction, which lifts the German Evangelical Synod out 
of the class of the denominations of our country and 
places it in an undeniable relation to the Lutheran 
Church — in spite of the fact that in a number of prin- 
ciples touching the Union (cf. Ill, 1-2; 5), also 
in the appreciation of the Sacrament of the Altar, 
as we shall see, this body has established itself upon 
positions which Lutheranism can never recognize with- 
out denying itself. 

(e) The forms for preparatory service and absolu- 



183 

Hon* 9 are also Lutheran. Here also the Lutheran ten- 
dency of the body can be noticed. 

(f ) The treatment of the Lord's Supper in the Evan- 
gelical Catechism is not satisfactory from a Lutheran 
view-point. As on the subject of Baptism so also 
in part five on the holy Supper the words of Luther are 
not used in the catechism proper; the interpretation is 
in other language. To the first question in the edition 
for the catechumens (English) : "What is the Lord's 
Supper?" the answer is given: "The Lord's Supper is 
that Sacrament by which we receive the Body and the 
Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ as the nourishment of 
our new life," etc., the German catechism says: "durch 
welches der neue Mensch den Leib und das Blut. . .emp- 
faengt." In Dr. Irion's "Erklaerung," published 1897 
(pp. 354 f.), the same expression (der neue Mensch) is 
used and interpreted. Also in the "Fundamentals" we 
read (p. 136) : "The Lord's Supper is that Sacrament by 
which the new man receives the Body and Blood of our 
Lord Jesus Christ as the nourishment of his new life." 
But in the latest edition of the catechism for catechu- 
mens this phrase "the new man" has been omitted. This 
would indicate that the teaching of Calvinism that the 
believer only receives the heavenly gift is not to be given 
as the recognized doctrine of the synod. Dr. Irion is 
generally on the Lutheran side. He writes: "How is it 
with the unworthy? What does he receive and what 
does he not receive? It is evident that man through his 
faith or unbelief cannot alter the Sacrament. Not man 
makes the Sacrament, but the almighty power of God. 
When, therefore, the signs and the means are there and 
the Word of God is added, then they are consecrated and 
they are offered as the Body and Blood of Christ to those 
who eat whether these are worthy or unworthy. Both, 
then, receive the same. The difference is in the effect, 
which is either blessing or judgment according to the 
difference between faith and unbelief." This is certain- 
ly Lutheran language ! The "Fundamentals" are less 

89 Cf. Evangelical Book of Worship, p. 158 ff. 



184 

outspoken, yet on this question virtually the same is ex- 
pressed (p. 138). 

There is, however, a consideration that cannot be 
passed by in this discussion. When the catechism says 
that "we receive the Body and the Blood of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, ,, we have to ask: What is here meant by 
these terms? We learned (sub. Ill, 3) that Calvin and 
several of the Calvinistic Confessions also speak of 
Christ's Body being received in connection with the Sup- 
per, but meaning by that merely something spiritual, 
namely, the "sacrificial virtue or effects of the death of 
Christ on the cross." 90 What is the meaning when the 
men of the German Evangelical Synod speak of Christ's 
Body and Blood in the Supper? Dr. Irion, whose heart 
is in the Lutheran teaching, as we have seen again and 
again, reviews the teachings of Luther, Zwingli and Cal- 
vin (pp. 363 f.) and then says of Luther's Real Pres- 
ence: "This is also accepted by the Evangelical 
Church." (Dazu bekennt sich auch die Evangelische 
Kirche). But for a Lutheran accepting the position of 
the Union it is impossible to avoid inconsistencies. After 
Dr. Irion has admitted that to Zwingli the Lord's Supper 
is a "mere memorial" and that according to Calvin 
"bread and wine are after all only empty signs and that 
the holy Supper gives us nothing that could not be re- 
ceived outside of the same, namely, through real prayer 
and meditation of the Word of God," he says: "The 
Evangelical Church also recognizes (laesst zu Recht 
bestehen) the Reformed doctrine, although she accepts 
Luther's teaching as the profoundest" (p. 364). The 
above quoted sentence of Dr. Irion ("This is also accept- 
ed by the Evangelical Church") is omitted by the "Fun- 
damentals" (see p. 141), which then make the following 
statement: "The Evangelical Church does not undertake 
to decide for or against any one of these (Lutheran, 
Zwinglian, Calvinian) teachings, since both Christ and 

90 Cf. Hodge, Systematic Theology III, 645 f. We quote once 
more these words of Calvin : "From the hidden fountain of di- 
vinity, life is in a wonderful manner infused into the flesh of 
Christ and thence flows out to us" 






185 



the Apostles, while stating the fact, are silent as to the 
manner in which the believers receive the Body and 
Blood of Christ" (p. 142). 

Before proceeding in our review, we feel constrained to 
remark that the Lutheran Church can never admit that 
the Scriptures say nothing on the manner in which Body 
and Blood of Christ are received in the holy Supper. Ac- 
cording to the words of institution, reported four times 
in the New Testament with almost identical terms, it is 
by eating and by drinking. The mystery in the Lord's 
Supper is in the sacramental union between the earthly 
and the heavenly elements; not in the question whether 
the communication of Christ's glorified humanity takes 
place in, with and under bread and wine through eating 
and drinking, or, as taught by Calvin, that the life from 
the Body of Christ (ex carne et sanguine Christi) is 
poured out upon the believer in connection with (cum) 
an eating and drinking of merely bread and wine. 91 But 
the question which has not yet been answered is : What 
does the catechism of the German Evangelical Synod (and 
the Book of Worship) understand by the terms "Body 
and Blood of Christ"? Luther's catechism says: "It is 
the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ." Art. 
X of the Augsburg Confession says that "Body and Blood 
of Christ are truly present and distributed to those that 
eat." Dr. Irion keeps his "Erklaerung" throughout in 
conformity with this teaching of the Lutheran Confes- 
sions (cf. pp. 356 f., 362 f., 368). Is his view the 
teaching of the synod? While the book is published by 
the synod, yet we saw that in the introduction by the lit- 
erary committee certain teachings are regarded as indi- 
vidual positions of the author and characterized as ex- 
pression of theological liberty. On page 356, writing on 
the Body and Blood of Christ in the Supper, Irion says : 
"Therefore Christ has made provision that we can feed 
upon His Body and Blood in the Supper, this means that 
we shall receive Jesus in His essence (wesenhaft) into 
ourselves, and by so doing His redemption, His sin-con- 

91 On this matter Dr. Irion speaks very correctly on pp. 362 
and 363. 



186 

quering power If we now feed upon (geniessen) 

the Body and Blood of Jesus we receive Himself and by 
that our own redemption." After having observed the 
persistency with which Dr. Irion expresses the Real Pres- 
ence on the basis of the sacramental union, we cannot be- 
lieve that with these words he intended an approach to 
Calvinism. Calvin rejected the Real Presence; yet, as 
we have seen, he speaks of a receiving of the Body and 
Blood of Christ in the Supper. But by that he meant 
that by faith the elect receive something spiritual from 
the Body of Christ, which in reality is absent. "From 
the hidden fountain of divinity, life is, in a wonderful 
manner, infused into the flesh of Christ, and thence flows 
out to us." 92 This "dynamic" or "virtual" presence, as 
Hodge and others have called it, seems to be favored by 
the author of the "Fundamentals." In his abridged 
translation of the above quoted passage by Dr. Irion it 
has been put as follows : "His Body and Blood which He 
has given for us for the remission of sins stand for the 
sin-conquering power (italics by the author) of His 
atonement and redemption. By receiving it we receive 
Himself and His work of redemption and strengthen the 
inner man and the new life" (p. 137). Are these words 
intended to express the conception of Calvin, or are they 
to represent a middle ground between Calvin and Luther ? 
We reiterate a previous statement: 93 "There is no mid- 
dle doctrine between Luther and Calvin." Yet on page 
140 of the "Fundamentals" we read that "the bread and 
wine are vehicles of the Body and the Blood of Christ," 
and on page 119 : "In the Lord's Supper He gives in and 
with the bread and wine His Body and His Blood as the 
nourishment of the new life." Can this be maintained 
with consistency now when Christ's Body and Blood are 
not really present, but merely "stand for the sin-conquer- 
ing power of His atonement and redemption?" If it is 
this that we mean by Christ's Body and Blood, then there 
is no need for outward signs as vehicles, but the receiv- 
ing takes place through the faith which responds to the 

92 See the references above, sub III, 3. 

93 Cf. p. 41 ; in Lutheran Quarterly, Oct. 1918, p. 576. 



187 

influences of the Holy Spirit. Such a conception would 
also be out of harmony with what was written on page 
119 on the Sacraments in general: "These outward 
things are also the means through which He imparts the 
spiritual gifts of His grace ; they are the vehicles of His 
spiritual blessings." Lutheranism and Calvinism each 
represent a historically developed system, and it is im- 
possible to create a consistent tertium quid by patching 
the two together in an artificial way. But is this spirii?- 
ualistic conception of the Body and Blood of Christ in the 
"Fundamentals" the really accepted teaching of the Ger- 
man Evangelical Synod? This would be misunderstand- 
ing the general position of this body. It simply gives 
freedom to teach Lutheran or Reformed on this subject. 
"Such difference within the agreement on the funda- 
mentals is legitimate in the Evangelical Church." 94 A 
confessional expression is avoided. 

The official position of the synod with regard to teach- 
ing on the Lord's Supper is expressed in the "Evangel- 
ical Book of Worship" (1916). Let us review for a mo- 
ment the liturgical formulas there presented. Their aim 
is to satisfy both types of teaching. The first liturgical 
formula (p. 162 f.) is offered to those of Lutheran con- 
viction. In doctrinal thought it is Lutheran, but it bears 
the marks of the Union in two points: (1) Before recit- 
ing the words of institution the minister is to say: "Let 
us hear with reverent hearts the words of Christ, insti- 
tuting this holy Supper." This introductory remark be- 
fore the act of consecration reminds us of the formula 
with which the Prussian Church Union came into exist- 
ence. 98 The suggestion to the communicant is: Such 
were the words of Christ; now interpret them as they 
may appeal to you. (2) For the distribution of the wine 
two forms are offered. The first is: "Take and drink, 
this is the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed 
for you, and for many, for the remission of sins ; thk do 

94 Cf. the preface to Dr. Irion's "Erklaerung" by the Literary 
Committee of the synod. 

95 Compare here what we wrote on page 120 (separate print) 
in Lutheran Quarterly, Oct. 1919, p. 535 f. See foot-note 19. 



188 

in remembrance of Him." And then this alternate is of- 
fered : "Take and drink ye all of it ; this is the Cup of the 
New Covenant in the Blood of Christ, which was shed for 
you, and for many, for the remission of sins." (So also 
the second form) . This is entirely Scriptural and in har- 
mony with the words used in giving the bread. The Lu- 
theran Church also uses them in connection with the con- 
secration of the elements, but not as a form of distribu- 
tion, because here she wants to profess the Real Pres- 
ence. Besides the element of accommodation to the Re- 
formed there is in this outward conformity to the Scrip- 
ture words the suggestion of treating the doctrinal differ- 
ence as an open question. The second liturgical formula 
is obviously designed to be used by those of more Re- 
formed persuasion. Here the "Exhortation" (p. 166) 
reads as follows : "Dearly Beloved : Our Blessed Saviour 
Jesus Christ, instituted the Sacrament of the holy com- 
munion that it might be the abiding memorial of His 
atoning death; the seal of His perpetual presence in the 
Church through the Holy Spirit; the mystical represen- 
tation of the sacrifice of Himself on the cross ; the pledge 
of His undying love to His people; and the bond of His 
loving union and fellowship with them to the end of 
time." And then we read : "We have to do here, not with 
outward signs merely, but with heavenly realities which 
these signs represent." What are these "heavenly re- 
alities"? Here is room for all those shades of interpre- 
tation that associate themselves with Calvin's concep- 
tion of that "spiritual substance" from the life of Christ, 
which at the Supper is flowing out to the believing com- 
municant. 

After this excursion into the "Evangelical Book of 
Worship," we return again to the catechism as inter- 
preted by the "Fundamentals," believing that our review 
of the liturgical formulas has confirmed what this little 
book, in the now following quotations, offers as a charac- 
terization of the confessional position of the German 
Evangelical Synod. On page 142 we read: "The Evan- 
gelical Church does not undertake to decide for or against 
any one of these teachings The Evangelical Church 



189 

believes in unity rather than in uniformity of doctrine, 
and in conformity with its acknowledged principle in 
points of disagreement always employs the exact words 
of Scripture in the administration of the Sacrament. ,> 
Our arguments against this position has been expressed 
in this chapter, sub III, 2. The following oaragraph, in- 
corporated in the "Fundamentals," (p. 142 f.) character- 
izes the position of the synod by offering the following: 
"Two knights of old, who, coming from opposite direc- 
tions, one day met before the statue of a great warrior. 
After greeting one another they fell to admiring the 
work of the artist, praising the various details of feature, 
position, etc. 'Look at the great silver shield/ said the 
one, 'how naturally he holds it aloft/ 'Silver shield, say- 
est thou/ said the other, 'the shield is of gold/ 'Gold/ 
replied the other, 'do I not see with my own eyes that it 
is silver? How can it be gold?' 'And I say it is gold!' 
hotly retorted the other. 'To say it is of silver is false/ 
'No man accuses me of falsehood unpunished/ cried the 
other in rage, as he rushed at his opponent with drawn 
sword. The mortal combat was soon over, and as the 
victor, himself mortally wounded, gazed at the shield 
above him, his dying look was dazzled by the glittering 
gold. One side of the shield was of silver, the other of 
gold!" 

This story is told to show "the value and beauty of the 
Evangelical way of treating the different points of view 
on this or any other subject." The Lutheran Church 
does not deny that the Lord's Supper is also a memorial. 
She also makes use of the analogies of Calvin in her li- 
turgical formulas. But in the doctrinal conception not 
only the Zwinglian, but also the view of Calvin stands 
opposed to the Real Presence of Luther. The two posi- 
tions are exclusive the one of the other. Yes and No can 
not dwell together in one conviction. If it were so simple 
to harmonize the entire difference between the Lutheran 
and the Reformed Church, then it would be difficult, in- 
deed, to understand how the Reformers in their time and 
the centuries of great theologians after them, up to the 
present day, could have labored on the solution of the 



190 

problem in vain. We cannot so ignore the History of 
Dogma. 

5. The Confessional Paragraph of the German Evan- 
gelical Synod. 

It reads as follows : "The German Evangelical Synod 
of North America, as a part of the Evangelical Church, 
defines the term 'Evangelical Church* as denoting that 
branch of the Christian Church which acknowledges the 
Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments as the 
Word of God, the sole and infallible guide of faith and 
life, and accepts the interpretation of the Holy Scripture 
as given in the Symbolical Books of the Lutheran and Re- 
formed Churches, the most important being the Augs- 
burg Confession, Luther's and the Heidelberg Cate- 
chisms, in so far as they agree, but where they disagree, 
the German Evangelical Synod of North America adheres 
strictly to the passages of Holy Scripture bearing on the 
subject, and avails itself of the liberty of conscience pre- 
vailing in the Evangelical Church." 98 We shall try to dis- 
cuss the practical questions suggesting themselves from 
the examination of this doctrinal basis. 

This confessional paragraph, on which the synod, 
agreed at an early time of its history, 97 may be called the 
dynamic of its church literature and of its public teach- 
ing. It is this confessional paragraph that sanctions all 
the Union features which we have reviewed in the pre- 
ceding discussions, or, rather, is the source of them. It 
may be of interest here to quote the confessional obliga- 
tion taken by a candidate for the ministry at his ordina- 
tion. Affirmation is to be made to the following ques- 
tion: "Do you promise to preach the Word of God in 
purity and sincerity as it is contained in the Old and New 

96 Schory, p. 7. Kokritz, in "Fundamentals I," p. 31. 

97 It was in 1848- But already in 1841 the "Deutscher Evange- 
lischer Kirchenverein des Westens" had adopted a confessional 
basis in which it accepted "that interpretation of the Holy Scrip- 
tures, which is deposited in the symbolical books of the Evan- 
gelical Lutheran and the Evangelical Reformed Church of Ger- 
many, in so far as these agree." This form was then superceded 
by the above-quoted paragraph. See Muecke, as cited, p. 118. 



191 

Testament and promulgated in the articles of faith 
adopted by our Evangelical Church?" 98 These articles of 
faith must mean the Lutheran and the Reformed Con- 
fessions "in so far as they agree" ; a specifically Lutheran 
or Calvinistic teaching in all the points of disagreement, 
then, would lie beyond the confessional obligation, and, 
therefore, cannot claim more weight than private 
opinion. 

It is evident that the synod in organizing itself upon 
this basis was hopeful of being able to unite Lutherans 
and Reformed in one organization. Not much of this hope 
has been realized. Rev. J. H. Horstmann, editor of the 
"Evangelical Herald," writes: "The Evangelical Synod 
was founded with the purpose of promoting the unity of 
the spirit in the bonds of peace, and of bringing about 
organic union between Lutheran and Reformed Churches 
wherever possible." But in the same article he admits 
that "there is no longer a reasonable possibility of real- 
izing the aim with which the Evangelical Synod was 
founded" (p. 260). While it is true that the synod has 
held open the doors for Lutherans and Reformed alike 
yet its constituency is made up chiefly of people brought 
up in the Lutheran Church of Germany and their de- 
scendants. In the seventy-five years of its history it has 
not attracted any existing organization or group of Luth- 
erans or Reformed here in America to its platform. The 
reason lies in the dualism of the confessional basis which 
permeates the entire official and private literature of the 
synod as we have seen. 

Certainly Lutheranism cannot settle upon the Union 
principle, and from all that we know of its genius, it 
never will. It has been said that there was a time when 
a union could have been effected with the old General 
Synod of the Lutheran Church in America. But this is an 
utter misjudgment of the historical situation. The old 
General Synod, while very liberal with regard to confes- 
sional matters and willing to fraternize with non-Luth- 

98 Evangelical Book of Worship, p. 225. 

09 Magazin fuer Evangelische Theologie und Kirche, July 1919, 
P. 259- 



192 

erans, nevertheless watched jealously over the identity of 
Lutheranism in America, and always opposed, not only 
organic union, but also institutional co-operation with 
the Reformed. 100 Never in the history of the General 
Synod was there a prospect for a union on the basis of 
anything like the confessional paragraph of the German 
Evangelical Synod. There might have been a union on 
the basis of the Augsburg Confession with much latitude 
of interpretation, but that would not have kept such a 
Melanchthonian-Lutheran body from developing in the 
direction of the doctrinal basis as formulated by the 
United Lutheran Church in America. Lutheranism is 
doctrinal in its genius. Facts such as these that the Me- 
lanchthon Synod and the Franckean Synod (district 
bodies of the old General Synod), organized on the basis 
of Melanchthonianism, could not maintain themselves, 
and that in the present United Norwegian Synod the more 
pietistic Hauge Synod was absorbed by the confessional 
elements — all such facts carry with them their own les- 
sons. At times and in certain places, Melanchthonianism 
has been a ferment in Lutheran theology, but, when or- 
ganized upon its own principles, it has never been con- 
structive in establishing churches with the element of 
permanency. 101 

Next to the Lutherans the nearest to the German Evan- 
gelical Synod are the German Reformed, because here, 
through the Bucero-Melanchthonian bridges and through 
the bond of German pietism, there are certain points of 
contact and avenues of approach. 102 But even though the 
Heidelberg Catechism is mentioned in the German Evan- 
gelical confessional basis, the German Reformed Church 
of America has never seriously considered a union. The 
dualism between Lutheranism and Calvinism naturally 
stands in the way. Doctrinally the Reformed Church is 

ioo See Neve, Brief History of the Lutheran Church in Amer- 
ica, 2nd ed-, p. 99 f. 

101 See the very interesting remarks on this subject by Kahnis 
in "Der Innere Gang des Deutschen Protestantismus," I, p. 106. 

102 Dr. Geo. W. Richard of the Reformed Seminary at Lan- 
caster, Pa., characterizes the Heidelberg Catechism as "Calvinism 
modified by the German genius." See his "Heidelberg Catechism," 
p. 96, cf. 103. 



193 

more pliable than the Lutheran, yet it cannot dispense 
with theological consistency in the confessional basis; it 
cannot ignore its history and the History of Dogma. 

The reason for failing to realize the original aim of a 
union between Lutherans and Reformed is given by a 
member of the synod with this remark: "We have not 
accomplished a real union between Calvinism and Luth- 
eranism in our own church." 103 The fact is, the time 
for a real doctrinal union has passed. 104 And another 
contributor to the "Magazin," after having asked whether 
the German Evangelical Synod can hope to become the 
United Evangelical Church of America, answers: "A 
view upon all that we call historical development contra- 
dicts such (dream). Let us not play with big thoughts 
nor intoxicate ourselves with far-reaching plans." 105 

Between the teachings of the two churches of the Re- 
formation the German Evangelical Synod is more Luth- 
eran than Reformed in its doctrinal tendency. In the 
evasiveness of expression on the states of Christ and in 
the Lord's Supper, even in reference to the Heidelberg 
Catchism in the confessional paragraph, also in the for- 
mal departure from the words of Luther's catechism, the 
synod does not speak its real heart ; all these elements be- 
tray the marks of mere accommodation to the union prin- 

103 R. Niebuhr in Magazin fuer Ev. Theologie und Kirche, 
March 1919, p. 127. Rev. J. H. Horstmann, in an article of some 
fine observations under the title "A Study of the Relationship in 
Lutheranism and Calvinism" in the same periodical (July 1919, p, 
259 f.), says, after referring to some recently accomplished family 
unions : "The new alignments now taking place are only making 
more clear the two antagonistic elements that need to be in- 
wardly reconciled before anything like outward and organic union 
can be expected. In the last analysis Lutheranism and Calvinism, 
which divided European Protestantism into two hostile camps in 
the sixteenth century, still remain the divisive factors in the 
twentieth. In the light of present conditions their relationship, 
we believe, constitutes a vital problem of Protestantism in Amer- 
ica." Yes, here is the real difficulty. 

104 May we again call attention to our thoughts on pp. 36 and 
62 (special print) and in Lutheran Quarterly, 1918, p. 570 and 1919, 
p. 211. 

105 J. Krause, in Magazin, Sept., 1919, p. 340: "Spielen wir doch 
nicht mit grossen Gedanken, berauschen wir uns nicht an weit- 
auschanenden Plaenen." 



194 

ciple. Its Lutheran spirit comes to expression in the 
doctrine of Baptism (in connection with a strong appre- 
ciation of confirmation), in the observation of the church 
year, in the composition of the church hymnal, in the 
contents and the temper of its preaching, in its devotional 
literature, and in its Inner Mission work. 106 The non- 
Lutheran features of the synod are seen chiefly in its Me- 
lanchthonian (humanistic) aversion to the Lutheran 
Church's doctrinal definiteness, 107 in its concessions to the 
Reformed in the confessional paragraph, in the cate- 
chism and in the ministerial acts, particularly regarding 
the Lord's Supper. 108 Yet with all this there is in the 
synod an outspoken antipathy to what we have called 
"high Calvinism"; 109 especially against the legalism of 
the Calvinistic churches and their mixing of Church and 
State. 110 This feeling has been intensified through ob- 
servations during the world war. 111 

106 This judgment may seem to be out of harmony with what 
we wrote sixteen years ago in our publication "1st zwischen den 
Unierten Amerikas und der Landeskirche Preussens kein Unter- 
schied?" (cf. 18). But when the remark was made there that in 
the German Evangelical Synod the Reformed element prevails, 
we had in mind chiefly the conception of the Lord's Supper, and 
matters related to this doctrine, taking the position of Julius 
Stahl that in a real union between Lutherans and Reformed it is 
always the Lutheran side that has to make the concession. This 
is our position to-day, but that does not mean that in its general 
character, doctrinal and practical, the synod is more Reformed 
than Lutheran. 

107 Cf. p. 42 (separate print), Luth. Quarterly, 1918, p. 577; also 
separate print p. 194 f., Luth. Quarterly, 1919, p. 385^ f. 

108 The attitude on the Lord's Supper is especially regretable 
from the Lutheran point of view. Luther and the consistent theo- 
logians of the Lutheran Church have always regarded an unam- 
biguous attitude to the Real Presence as one of the chief tests of 
Lutheranism. (Cf. reprint p. 30, also p. 14 f.; in Lutheran Quarterly. 
Oct. 1918, p. 564 f. ; also Lutheran Quarterly, Jan'y 1918, p. 112 f.) 
And it may also be said that the Union principle as such, namely, 
the principle of accommodation in doctrinal matters, begets a 
practice different from the practice that characterizes the Luth- 
eran Church. 

109 Cf. our discourses p. 40 ff. ; Luth. Quarterly, 1918, p. 574 ff. 
no See Horstmann in "Magazin," November 1919, p. 430 ff- 

in See minutes of Kansas District, 1919, p. 6; of Nebraska 
District, 1919, pp. 14, 20, 21 ; cf. Michigan District, p. 28. See also 
the excellent address of Prof. K. Bauer at Elmhurst, 111., (pub- 
lished 1917) "Der Freiheitskampf der Reformation in Lichte der 
Gegenwart." 



195 

In closing our discussion we cannot help feeling con- 
vinced that the organization of the German Evangelical 
Synod upon the confessional paragraph here under con- 
sideration has proved itself a misfit to church conditions 
as they have later developed. The work of the synod 
has been chiefly among the Lutherans ; comparatively few 
Reformed have sought membership, perhaps not more 
than have found their way into the various synods of the 
United Lutheran Church. When at the time of the Chi- 
cago World's Fair (1893) Dr. A. Stoecker, former court- 
preacher in Berlin, visited in America and co-operated 
especially with the ministers of the German Evangelical 
Synod, it took this keen and practical churchman only a 
short time to see that mistake. He said that the synod 
should have established itself simply upon the Augsburg 
Confession and Luther's Catechism. 112 If this had been 
done, if the Heidelberg Catechism had been omitted from 
the confessional basis, then the synod would have been in 
German what for a long time the old General Synod was 
in English, the "broad church" of Lutheranism. Then 
the way would have been open at any time for a consis- 
tent and natural historic development towards a more 
confessional position. As it is now, the approach even 
to the mildest bodies of Lutheranism is made difficult be- 
cause of a confessional basis which no Lutheran Synod 
can recognize without denying its faith; not to speak of 
the misdevelopment which the membership of the body 
has suffered under the influence of the dualism expressed 
in that basis. 

The fathers of the German Evangelical Synod evidently 
had in mind to transplant the Church Union of Germany 
to American soil. 113 But then was a time altogether dif- 
ferent from to-day, a time of strong German immigra- 

112 Cf. Koch, Wie lange hinket ihr auf beiden Seiten?, p. 14 f. 

113 Sixteen years ago Dr. Kawerau, then professor in Berlin 
and member of the Evangelische Oberkirchenrat, said in a criti- 
cal review of the writer's pamphlet on the Union: The Church 
Union of Germany is a structure (Kirchengebilde) which cannot 
be transplanted to a country where the historical conditions have 
not been the same. 



196 

tion when it seemed that there would never be an end to 
German church work in America. Seventy-five years 
ago there was little thought of a time when the national 
development towards the English would seriously affect 
the churches of foreign extraction. Neither was there 
any thought of a time when the denominational problem 
would be altogether changed. The problem to-day for 
the German Evangelical Synod is no longer whether Ger- 
man Protestantism, that is, the followers of the Augs- 
burg Confession and those of the Heidelberg Catechism, 
can be united in one organization; but the question now 
is, in the linguistically transitional development of the 
body : Can the milder type of German Protestantism, doc- 
trinally Bucero-Melanchthonian, but religiously Luthero- 
mystical in character, enter into a wedlock with "high 
Calvinism" in the form of Scotch Presbyterianism, or 
with the churches of the type of American Methodism? 
It is this problem with which the German Evangelical 
Synod of to-day sees itself confronted. In the face of 
this question some of the younger men advise going to 
Geneva, others insist on going to Wittenberg, and the 
majority, because of the danger in such movements, 
urges continuance as an independent organization. 114 

The Lutheran Church is justified in having a special 
interest in the final outcome of the development of this 
body, because by far the most of its old members were 
Lutherans. Because of its entire isolation from the 
Lutheran Church of America, resulting from literary 
conflict and practical friction, it is quite natural that in 
the German Evangelical Synod, especially among its 
younger ministry, the leaning to the Reformed side of 
American Protestantism has been growing. Another 
generation may land the synod in the Calvinistic camp. 
Is there no way of bringing about a touch between the 

114 See in Magazin, Mar. 1919, p. 125 &., the article by Niebuhr, 
"Where Shall We Go?" also Minutes of Nebraska District, 1919, 
p. 14 (6, c.) In Magazin of May, 1919, p. 194, see the article of 
Henninger, "Why Go At All?" Cf. Koch, Wie lange hinket ihr 
auf beiden Seiten? p. 7 ff. 



197 

German Evangelical Synod and American Lutheranism? 
The development in the Evangelical Synod has been of 
such a nature that at the present time union would be an 
impossibility. But if the synod could see its way clear 
to establish itself upon the Augsburg Confession only, 
then there might develope a communion of church inter- 
ests which could be strengthened by free conferences 
that might lead us more and more to a common under- 
standing in confessional matters. 

Some further lessons suggested by this chapter, as well 
as preceding ones, will be given in a closing article. 



CHAPTER VII. 

Reflections Regarding Present-Day Union Movements 
in America. 

Literature: The Christian Union Quarterly, edited by 
Dr. Peter Ainslie, 504 N. Fulton Ave., Baltimore, Md. 
We call attention to all the issues of 1919, especially to 
that of January. See also the January and April issues 
of 1920. The references in this chapter are chiefly to the 
preceding chapters of our series. 

I. The Problem of Church Union in America is not 
the same as in Germany. 

In our examination of the union movements among the 
Germans we had a practical end in view. We wanted to 
furnish a historical material from which lessons might 
be drawn for an attitude to movements in America, in 
which the Lutheran Church is counted upon to enter into 
union with the Reformed group of American Protestant- 
ism. We shall open these concluding reflections with a 
consideration of the Union problems as we have it in 
America, 

In Germany it was the aim of the friends of Church 
Union to unite only the Lutherans and the German-Re- 
formed. In the second chapter of our series of investi- 
gations we have made clear what we understand by the 
"German-Reformed." It is a type of German Protest- 
antism, which originated through the early influences of 
Zwingli upon some of the Southern parts of Germany. 
This influence was especially strong in the so-called 
Cities of Upper Germany with Bucer at Strasburg as 
their leading factor. It was a movement which later 
was controlled by Calvin and spread to the Palatinate, to 
Bremen, Nassau, Anhalt, Hesse-Cassel, Lippe, Branden- 
burg, to parts of East Friesland and to the Rhine Pro- 
vinces where it was found when the Hohenzollerns came 

198 



199 



to rule. 1 The confessional bond of union was the Heid- 
elberg Catechism. They held to Calvin's teaching on the 
means of grace but as a rule did not follow him in his 
doctrine of predestination. In the German-Reformed 
we have a Calvinism "modified by the German genius" 
(Richards). In some of the above mentioned dominions 
(in Anhalt, for instance) the prevailing type was nearer 
to Melanchthonianism than to what we would call genu- 
inely Reformed. It must be understood that union in 
Germany — and the same is true of the German Evan- 
gelical Synod of North America — means a union of the 
Lutherans with a type of the Reformed in which there 
is, as a rule, an absence of "high Calvinism, 2 

When in America the Lutheran Church is invited to 
become a partner in union movements, a far more com- 
prehensive program is planned. In the movement 
known as "The Call for a World Conference on Faith 
and Order by the Protestant Episcopal Church" (1910), 
as also in the "Association for the Promotion of Christ- 
ian Unity" of the Disciples (1910), invitations are ex- 
tended even to the Greek Catholic and the Roman Catho- 
lic churches. 3 And all Protestant churches "who accept 
Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior" are included, of course. 
In the "Call for a Conference on Organic Union of the 
Evangelical Protestant Bodies in America by the Pres- 
byterian Church" (Dec. 1918) 4 the invitation was to all 
the Protestant churches in so far as they are "evangel- 
ical" or "orthodox." The following churches partici- 
pated actively in the first conference held at Phila- 
delphia 1919: Episcopalians, Presbyterians, United 



i We refer to Dr. James I. Good, The Origin of the Reformed 
Church in Germany; also his History of the Reformed Church in 
Germany; also his Heidelberg Catechism in its Newest Light. 

2 Cf. chapter two, sec. vii. 

3 See Peter Ainslie, "Towards Christian Unity," p. 48; also If 
Not a United Church — What? Also in Christian Union Quarterly 
Oct. 1920, pp. 135, 119 f. Regarding Rome, see in the minutes of 
the last General Synod (1917), pp. 123 ff., Dean Dr. Bauslin's criti- 
cism of the letter of Cardinal Gaspari on behalf of Pope Benedict, 
written as an answer to overtures of one of the conferences on 
"Faith and Order." 

4 See The Christian Union Quarterly, all issues of 1919. 



200 



Presbyterians, Reformed, German Evangelical Synod, 
Congregationalists, Methodists, United Brethren, Mora- 
vians, Baptists, Disciples of Christ, Society of Friends. 
A reading of these names reminds us at once of the con- 
flicting confessional positions to be reconciled in such an 
"organic union." If the Lutherans should join such a 
movement the problem would be forbiddingly difficult. 
The Lutheran confessional positions as expressed in the 
Augsburg Confession of 1531 would have to be recon- 
ciled not only with the spiritualistic conception of the 
means of grace, as was the case in Germany, but also 
with the predestinarianism of high Calvinism or with the 
Arminianism of the opposite wing of Reformed Protest- 
antism and with the standpoints which emphasize such 
matters as church organization, mode of baptism, etc. 
There are difficulties in the way of a full Protestant 
Union in America, especially when the Lutheran Church 
is included, that were absent in the union endeavors on 
the other side of the Atlantic. Among these we should 
also count the teaching and practice of churches which 
may be called daughters of the Reformed Church : Metho- 
dists, the Baptists of many kinds, and the Quaekers, 
Menonites etc. 

The Lutheran Church, as long as it has not sacrificed 
its own genius, is fundamentally opposed to confessional 
indifferentism on all teaching of the Scriptures pertain- 
ing to the "Gospel." Our reference is to the use of this 
term in Art. VII of the Augsburg Confession. 

To show how impossible it is for the Lutheran Church 
to fall into line with sentiments expressed at such union 
conferences we shall quote from a few of the papers that 
were read at the above mentioned conference in Philadel- 
phia, called by the Presbyterians. 5 

The representative of the Congregational Churches 
said: "There has been a general surrender of the idea 
that a church must have an elaborate creedal basis The 
historic creeds need not be repudiated. They are honored 

5 Published in the Christian Union Quarterly, April 1919. 



201 

monuments of the faith of our fathers and witnesses to 
the apprehension of Christianity of those in spiritual 
succession to whom we gladly stand. But most Protest- 
ants are satisfied, as a present practical test of com- 
munion, with a creed which embraces only the central 
affirmations of the Christian faith. We are thus deliv- 
ered from the necessity of demanding that our brother 
accept all our philosophy of the universe." 6 He who is 
familiar with customary deliverances on this subject in 
pulpit and church press knows that there is very much 
unexpressed thought back of such a deliverance. The 
Lutheran Church could not subscribe to these thoughts, 
without committing outright suicide. In the same ad- 
dress we read :"The sacraments instituted by Christ will 
be administered by each local church in the mode of its 
selection, but with full agreement that the mode of each 
sister church shall have complete recognition and that 
all disciples of Christ shall be equally welcome to their 
privileges. ,, This is to satisfy the immersionists on their 
"mode" of Baptism; but how about the far more im- 
portant doctrine of Baptism ? There seems to be wide 
agreement that the doctrine of the Sacraments is entirely 
a matter of indifference. The reader for the Protestant 
Episcopalian Church, at that convention, quoted the 
positions of the "Conference on Faith and Order" and 
insisted upon the recognition of at least "the fact of 
episcopacy, and not any theory as to its character." On 
matters of doctrine this church is willing to regard as a 
basis for union "the Nicene Creed as a sufficient state- 
ment of the Christian faith." This excludes a great 
sphere of doctrinal interest, the conflict between Au- 
gustinianism and Pelagianism and the conflict between 
semi-Pelagianism and the doctrine of grace as taught by 
the Reformers. All this is to be treated as if on the great 
theme of the Reformation the Church of Christ has had 
no special experience and needs no guide for its teaching. 
The speaker for the Disciples of Christ quoted as his 
church's position: "The Bible and the Bible alone is the 

6 Christian Union Quarterly, April, 1919, p. 46. 



202 

religion of the Protestants." This could only mean : the 
Bible without confessional interpretation of its teaching 
by the Church. The united Church, then, would be asked 
to make no profession of what the Bible teaches. The 
speaker appealed to "the right of private interpreta- 
tion." 7 He continued: "The various communions have 
their systems of theology, based upon interpretations of 
the Word of God, and which they adopt as standards of 
their respective churches." "Since all agree that the 
Scriptures contain the Word of God, why could not the 
Scriptures alone be sufficient ? They appear to have 
been so in the early church. Why should they not be for 
the Church now ?" 

Note: We have answered these questions in chapter 
VI, 8: "Scripture versus Confession." Yet we feel 
tempted to reply to these remarks here by saying: (1) 
The Church is forced to a distinct authoritative or 
symbolical interpretation of the Scriptures because in- 
dividuals and communions with misleading teachings 
also claim the Bible. Adoption by a church of the Scrip- 
tures and at the same time refusing to interpret them 
conf essionally as a bond of union is a negative or neutral 
and not a positive adoption. (2) The early church, in 
its conflicts with error (Ebionitism, Gnosticism, the 
pneumatics in general and an endless number of sects), 
was also forced to give an authoritative interpretation of 
the canon. We have the result of such creed-making in the 
"Rules of Faith," which gradually issued into the 
Apostles and the Nicene Creeds. (3) A grown man 
cannot be forced back to the state of the development of 
the boy. The Church of to-day has been led by the Holy 
Spirit into a rich doctrinal experience of the fundamen- 
tal truths of Scripture. We cannot ask the Church to 
ignore all this in order to return, in a kind of Christian 

7 In chapter VI we discussed the question how this thoroughly 
Lutheran principle is to be harmonized with the recognition of a 
common Creed for the Church. See Luth. Quarterly, Oct. 1920, 
pp. 428 ff. (Reprint, pp. 157 ff.) 



203 

agnosticism, to the primitive knowledge of the Christian- 
ity of the post-apostolic fathers. 

Surely, as far as the Lutheran Church is concerned, 
there will never be a union of Protestantism if such in- 
sistence is continued upon indifferentism regarding the 
matters pertaining to the "Gospel." The Augsburg Con- 
fession (Art. VII) defines the Church as "the congrega- 
tion of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and 
the Sacraments rightly administered." And it will be 
found that the matters pertaining to the Gospel do also 
include the conception of the means of grace, on which 
the great historical churches of the Reformation, the 
Lutheran and the Reformed of various names, have gone 
apart. It is in the field of soteriology with special regard 
to the means of grace where we need an understanding. 
Such things as modes of Baptism 8 and ordination are no 
essentials/ The question of church government presents 
a problem of practical difficulty, of course Here the 
democratic conception ought to receive large emphasis. 
But the fundamental problem of organic union is a doc- 
trinal problem. It is the old question of how to overcome 
the doctrinal difference between Lutheranism and Cal- 
vinism. We repeat that previously quoted remark of 
Rev. J. H. Horstmann of the German Evangelical Synod 
(chapter VI, foot note 103 ) : "The new alignments 
now taking place (reference is to the family unions) are 
only making more clear the two antagonistic elements 
that need to be inwardly reconciled before anything like 
outward and organic union can be expected. In the last 
analysis Lutheranism and Calvinism, which divided 
European Protestantism into two hostile camps in the 
sixteenth century, still remain the divisive factors in 
twentieth." We know that modern-liberalistic theology 
with the Ritschlian "experience" theory and the "value 
judgments" as the formal principle laughs at the sug- 

8 A friend who read the manuscript remarked as follows: "The 
mode of Baptism is in abstracto indifferent, but not so now in 
concrete The moment Baptists insist on immersion they are in 
error, and the mode ceases to be a minor point." This is correct. 



204 

gestion of returning to a discussion of the old differences 
between Lutherans and Reformed. But it is the only 
way for trying whether it is possible so late in histoiy 
to bring about the union of the Lutheran and the Re- 
formed wings of Protestantism. 9 

If we try to analyze the situation without undue op- 
timism, then we must say that a union of American Pro- 
testantism does not seem to be in sight. The constantly 
growing liberalism in the Reformed churches and their 
daughters is an added obstacle. At present there is only 
one kind of union that seems to be within reach. That 
is the family union. The reading of a number of the ad- 
dresses at the above mentioned conference in Philadel- 
phia on organic union has confirmed us in this question. 
Dr. W. M. Roberts of the Presbyterian Church spoke of 
a "consolidation among the churches of the Reformed 
Faith, which are most nearly akin in doctrine and or- 
ganization," (p. 32). Dr. Wm. M. Anderson, in speaking 
for the United Presbyterians, said: "Our denomination 
stands committed to a federated agreement uniting all of 
the Reformed churches in America holding the Presby- 
terian system" (p. 39). There is already an "Alliance 
of the Reformed Churches holding the Presbyterian Sys- 
tem," we read in the address of Dr. R. W. Miller for the 
Reformed Church (p. 58), and he says that his church 
"is ready for an organic union of the Presbyterian-Re- 
formed family of churches" and adds: "These ten or 
more bodies, by reason of history, polity and doctrine, 
are practically one and should be organically united to- 
gether" (p. 59). And Dr. J. W. Hamilton of the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church said at that same convention: 
"There is one very important reason why you should not 
insist upon our going into this union with you just now. 
We are in the business of organic union among our- 
selves " (p. 55 f. ) . The same is to be said of the 

9 It is late in history, because the opposing views of the two 
sides have crystalized into dogmas on the foundation of which a 
large theological literature has sprung up and a different church 
life has developed. Cf. chap. Ill, close of sec. IV. 



205 

Lutheran Church in America. The aim is to unite the 
Lutheran synods of the United States and Canada and 
to draw the Lutherans of the world into a common under- 
standing. Considerable progress has already been made. 
In 1917 three Norwegian synods united into one large 
body. Three years later the pre-eminently English 
speaking Lutheran bodies (General Synod, General 
Council, United Synod South) consolidated themselves 
into the United Lutheran Church in America. And at 
present the synods of more German constituencies are 
also trying to arrive at agreements. All such movements 
for "family union" are to be commended for two reasons : 
1) They are proof of a feeling in the Church that small 
and petty matters must not stand in the way of union. 
But 2) they also show that the historic churches of Pro- 
testantism, so far as they are not too much honeycombed 
with rationalism, will not dismiss with indifference the 
matters which in the light of Scripture testimony and of 
historic development are of fundamental importance; 
these differences must be faced and settled before there 
can be union. 10 

II. Some Motives for Union Examined. 

Much light is shed upon the merits of present-day 
union movements by an examination of their motives. 
Some of these motives are right and some are question- 
able and even wrong. 

We shall first mention three truly Christian motives 
and discuss their applicability: (1) Chief among these 
is the exhortation that comes from the Holy Scriptures. 
Christ prayed that His followers "all may be one" 
(John 17:21) ; Paul expressed it as the goal for the 
Church as the "body of Christ" that "we all come in the 
unity of the faith" (Eph. 4:13) ; and He recognizes only 
"one Lord, one faith one Baptism, one Lord and Father 
of all" (Eph. 4:5, 6). Followers of Jesus and believers 
in the testimony of His apostle cannot be opposed to a 

io See the editorial in The American Lutheran Survey, April 
14, 1920, on "Basic Lines for Christian Union." 



208 

true Christian union. But it must be a Christian union, a 
union in the "faith" (Eph. 4:13). It is the objective 
faith that is here meant, the fides quae creditur, the con- 
fession of faith ; not faith as the expression of spiritual 
life (fides qua creditur), which on this side of eternity 
never could be made a condition of outward Church 
union. The correctness of our contention that in Eph. 4 
Paul speaks of the objective faith is proved by verse 15 : 
"that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and 
fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine'' etc. ; 
"but speaking the truth in love " Many zealous advo- 
cates of the cause of Christian union, in quoting the above 
passages, overlook entirely that it is the union in the truth 
of God's Word that is meant. The first duty of the 
Church is to be faithful to the truth "once delivered unto 
the saints." "If ye continue in my Word, then ye are my 
disciples indeed, and ye shall know the truth and the 
truth shall make you free" (John 9:31, 32). Those that 
cry for union at any price forget entirely the emphasis 
which in the Scriptures is placed upon divine truth 
(aXrjBeva.) as the first fundamental requisite for spiritual 
work. Read Psalm 86 :11 ; Isaias 8 :20 ; James 1 :18 ; John 
17:17; 8:31, 32; Eph. 6:14; 2 John 4; Eph. 4:14. And 
in connection with these passages see Matth. 7:15 ff; 
24 :24 and 1 John 4:1. By a false union we would make 
error to co-exist with truth in the Church of Christ. The 
suggestion to find a union by "agreeing to disagree," 
when this is to cover matters pertaining to salvation, is 
unworthy of the Church. The Church is not a social or 
a literary club for the exchange of religious and ethical 
views, but it is a divine institution "in which the Gospel 
is rightly taught and the Sacraments rightly adminis- 
tered" (Augsb'g Conf., Art. VII). 

In the appreciation of the Word there is between the 
Lutheran Church on the one hand and the Reformed 
churches on the other that difference which we discussed 
in chapter VI, 3, C. But in this present day this confes- 
sional difference is augmented by a difference which has 
come in through modern theology: To the Lutheran 



207 

Church the Scriptures are the source of truth, and the 
Word as such is a power unto salvation and the seed of 
regeneration, the Holy Spirit always accompanying the 
Word. Modern theology — our reference is to Ritschlian- 
ism — has arrived at an altogether different conception of 
the Scriptures. The Ritschlians see the value of the 
Bible for the Christian chiefly in this that it reflects for 
our inspiration and warning the whole variety of human 
individuality, of human virtues and failings, of human 
life and endeavor. The Bible is not any more authorita- 
tive, but is, at best, only helpful for the understanding of 
our own inner life. It is a kind of a commentary on the 
personal religious life of the Christian. The objective 
faith is not a matter of interest anymore. This must be 
the explanation for the fact that in quoting the exhorta- 
tions for union in the Scriptures so many overlook alto- 
gether the demand that it must be a union in the truth. 
The Lutheran Church has so far refused to abandon the 
"formal principle" of the Reformation, while in the Re- 
formed churches there have been large concessions to the 
new theology. No wonder, therefore, that for the Luth- 
eran Church the real obstacles in the way of union are 
today harder to be overcome than at the time of the Leip- 
zig Colloquy in the seventeenth century (cf. chapt. Ill, 
sect. IV) . 

To establish our position against misunderstanding on 
the point here under discussion we say again: The de- 
mand of Christian union is Scriptural. No Christian 
can be in principle opposed to the union of the 
Christian churches. But it must be a union in the truth. 
It is because the modern movements have ignored this 
demand that the Lutheran Church has been unable to co- 
operate. 

(2) The children of God through the ages and in the 
various churches have been and are longing for a union 
in the faith ("one faith," "one Baptism."). To satisfy 
this longing and to contribute to the realization of this 
hope is also a true motive for union endeavors. The 
thought that many true Christians are praying for union 



208 



should lead the Church, especially its leaders, to repu- 
diate any division which is based on small and petty mat- 
ters, such as organization, mode of Baptism, etc., or 
on teachings which in the light of the analogy of the 
faith (Rom. 12:6) cannot establish articles of faith. 

(3) Among the motives for Church union there is one 
which we shall here describe and try to review with criti- 
cism. It is said that the various churches, in their separ- 
ate existence, have developed certain charisms and graces 
which after a union would become the common posses- 
sion of the whole Church. 

The Danish bishop Martensen 11 devotes a special chap- 
ter to the ethical peculiarities of the Lutheran and the 
Reformed churches. The Lutheran Church, he says, has 
brought out in the Christian life of its members the 
evangelical freedom of the Christian man ; the Reformed, 
as followers of Calvin, have been strong in organization. 
Lutheranism, again, in cultivating the type of Mary sit- 
ting at the feet of Jesus, has shown a special gift for the 
development of the inner Christian life, and in conse- 
quence has shown its strength in contemplation, mysti- 
cism, in religious song (chorals), in the forms of worship 
and church art ; the Reformed, with a preference for the 
type of Martha, have shown a gift for the development 
of outward activity which has expressed itself in great 
missionary undertakings, in Christian propaganda, in 
Bible and tract societies. Martensen himself suggests 
that the characteristics which he is discussing can hard- 
ly, at least not directly, be traced back to the doctrinal 
differences of the two churches. This is correct. Ele- 
ments of practical life, that can be traced as flowing out 
of erroneous doctrinal positions, such as a legalistic con- 
founding of Law and Gospel, or a misconceiving of the 
relation between Church and state, can never be counted 
among the charisms and graces, no matter how great 
they may appear to the superficial observer ; on the other 
hand, the church which is established upon the Scrip- 

ii Christian Ethics, German edition, vol. I, p. 54 f. 



209 

tures will produce all the charisms. This is funda- 
mental. However — and here is the element of truth in 
the thoughts of Martensen — , besides the endowments of 
a church, which have their root in a special comprehen- 
sion of Scripture truth, there are in the various churches 
also the elements that must be traced to the peculiarities 
of the founders, even to the nationality from which they 
sprang. Luther was a German mystic and as such a 
veritable embodiment of that untranslateable German 
"Gemuet" which accounts for so much of that wonderful 
religious depth in the German chorals and in the devo- 
tional literature of the Lutheran Church; Calvin unre- 
lenting in his logic, was stern and practical, with a genius 
for organization, in all of which he had a powerful appeal 
to the Anglo-Saxon mind. Lutheranism is mystical, Cal- 
vinism is practical, Methodism is aggressive, and so on. 
This it is what many advocates of union have in mind 
when they say that the Una Sancta, as a united Church, 
would be able to present itself to the Lord as its head 
and to the world as adorned with all the gifts and graces. 
To many this consideration is a plausible motive for 
union. But we confess that we cannot endorse it so un- 
reservedly as it is usually done, simply because of the 
kind of union usually aimed at. We are convinced that 
in an artificial union, that is in a union which does not 
grow out of an inner agreement in matters of faith, the 
Lutheran Church would lose her historical charism of 
guarding the truth. And as a natural consequence she 
would strip herself of other characteristics that have 
stood as bulwarks of sound religion through the ages 
and ought never to be sacrificed. An artificial organic 
union with the expectation of making the gifts and 
graces of the various churches a common possession of a 
merger body would defeat the end in view. Such gifts 
have their roots in the historical organizations that have 
produced them. These roots would suffer especially in 
a union which ignores the history of the churches in 
question, and the graces would be lost instead of pre- 
served! Those who urge union on this ground mean 



210 



well, but they fail to see that here questions are involved, 
that have not been thought out to the end. 

Next we shall discuss a number of motives of a more 
or less questionable character. 

(4) The economic motive is much advanced. We 
shall state both the suggestion and its criticism in the 
following words of President Dr. Haas of Muhlenberg 
College: "In this age of material considerations and of 
big financial undertakings men are prone to judge not 
only commercial concerns but all interests of life from 
the point of view of economic advantage or disadvantage. 
It seems a great waste of money and effort to perpetuate 
a number of minor organizations when a large major or- 
ganization could be formed with a great budget and a 
strong appeal because it saves so much in overlapping op- 
erations. It cannot be doubted that this economic motive 
which looks to a great central religious trust in moving 
many men to place a minor emphasis upon conscientious 
convictions which churches have long held sacred. The 
dream of a great organization, if it be effected without 
the clearest agreement in the truth, is a violation 
of the obligation which God has put upon the Church to 
keep His truth pure, undefiled and spiritually effective. 
A union formed through mere pressure of lay interests 
from a fundamentally economic emphasis is a destruction 
of the spiritual strength of the Church. 12 

(5) Many are clammoring for the union of Protest- 
antism because of the impression which a large organiza- 
tion would make upon the world. Prof. Th. Graebner, 
recently, characterized this as "kephalomania." If it is 
admitted that agreement in the truth of God's Word is 
the supreme condition of church union then this motive 
needs no special discussion, except to refer to Zechariah 
4 :6 where we read : "Not by might, nor by power, but by 
my Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts." We also appreciate 
the strength that comes from union, but it must not be 
bought at the price of infidelity to a sacred trust. 

12 Lutheran Church Review, Jan'y 1919, p. 2. 



211 



(6) Speaking of the motives for Church union there 
is one to which we have referred many times in previous 
chapters of our general discussion. State governments, 
considering the Church a convenient instrument for 
nationalization and the accomplishment of political pur- 
poses, have followed the policy of forcing the Lutherans 
into a union with the Reformed. Here the Hohenzol- 
lerns, especially Elector Sigismund of Brandenburg, 
Elector Frederick William I (the "Great Elector") and 
later King Frederick William III of Prussia, have sinned 
much against the Lutheran Church, as we have shown. 
On the part of church members there must be patriotism 
and loyalty to the government, but the Church as such 
should never be manipulated for political purposes. This 
is a needed exhortation also for us in America. We have 
been told that a position upon the principles of historic 
Lutheranfsm is "out of harmony with true American- 
ism." Our reply is that according to the constitution of 
the United States of America, religion as well as race 
presents no hindrance to good American citizenship. A 
consistent Lutheran can be just as good an American as 
a convinced Romanist, Presbyterian, Methodist, or Bap- 
tist. 

(7) "From theology we ought to return to pure reli- 
gion" — this sentiment is to very many a motive for 
union. We have had occasion to touch upon this subject 
so much that we can dispose of most of what here should 
be said by referring to previous chapters. See our treat- 
ment of the thoughts of Calixtus on this question in the 
Lutheran Quarterly, July 1919, pp. 372ff., cf. pp. 379 ff ; 
in our special print pp. 89, cf. 96. On his suggestion to 
establish the union on the basis of the Apostles Creed, 
see Luth. Quarterly pp. 370 ff. (our special print 87 ff.) 
Compare also our review of the Consensus Repetitus by 
Abr. Calovius in the same issue of the Quarterly, pp. 
388 ff. (reprint 105 ff.). We further refer to the 
thoughts of the "union theologians" of the middle of the 
last century, especially J. Mueller and C. I. Nitzsch 
(Quarterly 1919, p. 546; special print p. 129) and to the 
position of the German Evangelical Synod as discussed 



212 



in chapter VI, sec. Ill, 1, note 2. In abstracto, and with 
proper care of expression also in concreto, it is legiti- 
mate to distinguish between pure religion and theology. 
Yet in the manner in which this distinction is used by 
many advocates of church union there is something mis- 
leading. They overlook that after all theology is indis- 
pensible to indicate, to express, and to communicate re- 
ligion to the minds of men, and that it depends upon the 
contents of this theology whether the religion which is 
communicated is pure or adulterated, true or false, 
Scriptural or un-Scriptural. 

It is interesting to note the practical identity of the 
sentiment here under discussion in other suggestions 
which operate as motives for union. We are admonished : 
"From Luther and Calvin we must come back to 
Christ." It is about the same as when we hear: "From 
the Lutheran and the Reformed Confessions we appeal 
to the Scriptures." 13 The "Disciples" (Christian 
Church) admonish the denominations to "return to the 
beliefs and practices of the Church in the New Testa- 
ment times. 14 To find out what this is we have to turn to 
the New Testament itself. But what is the teaching of the 
New Testament? Is it not on the New Testament teaching 
that the churches disagree ? From the New Testament 
times up to our day the Church has studied the Scrip- 
tures, to discover their message for the individual unto 
his salvation and for the Church as entrusted with the 
spiritual feeding of souls. This has naturally yielded to 
the Church of to-day a doctrinal experience. This experi- 
ence which we can trace through the history of dogma 
has not been the same in all churches, because in some 
cases misleading principles were permitted to furnish 
viewpoints which made it impossible to do justice to the 
whole body of Scripture truth. The Lutheran Church 
claims neither infallibility nor perfection, Her teaching 
is true only in so far (quatenus) as her Creed actually 
agrees with the Scriptures. But the individual Luther- 

13 Cf. chapter VI, sec. Ill, 2. 

14 P. Ainslie, "Towards Christian Unity," p. II. 



213 

an, especially as a teacher in his church, is a Lutheran, 
because (quia) he believes that his Confession is Scrip- 
tural. 15 Members of the churches differing from the 
Lutheran Church ought to take the same position. We 
know that many do — such men, for instance, as the late 
Dr. B. Warfield of Princeton. But we know also that 
there is a strong sentiment of indifferentism in the Re- 
formed churches : Creeds are discredited, instead of con- 
fessional conviction there is only religious opinion, sub- 
ject to change with the theological schools of the age. 
We are speaking here from the standpoint of the men 
of religious conviction, who are convinced that the teach- 
ing of their Confession is Scriptural. Such men feel 
that we need to have confidence in the doctrinal experi- 
ence of the Church as it has embodied itself in the Con- 
fessions of history. And any new truth must be built on 
the old basis. Now the advocates of union tell us: 
"From theology you must go back to religion," "from the 
Confessions back to the Scriptures," "from Luther and 
Calvin back to Christ." What do these suggestions 
mean ? Considering their source, they can mean only 
that we must disown the doctrinal experience of the 
Church and return to the beginnings of its history with a 
nescimus. The full-grown man, equipped with the doc- 
trinal experience of a rich history is to return to the 
state of development of the child whose mind on definite 
beliefs is yet a blank. And what then ? Is the develop- 
ment to be started over again? No, we are simply to 
establish ourselves upon the "Scriptures" (refusing to 
interpret them conf essionally) , upon "Christ," upon 
"pure religion," and then the dream of an all-inclusive 
union will be a glorious reality! But can a church, by 
stepping into organic union with other churches, on the 
basis of Confessional agnosticism, forget what it does 
know? The Church certainly did learn something from 
the writings of the Reformers. Some of their books are 
immortal. Supposing that in the spirit of indifferentism 

15 Cf. chapter VI, sec. Ill, 3, note 1. 



214 



we enter into such an organic union, can we forget the 
historical Creeds? Will the conflicting principles of the 
Lutheran and the Reformed Creeds and the great theolo- 
gies that have been built upon them cease to function and 
continue to be dead ? 

We do not know what may be possible among the Re- 
formed churches Their genius is different from that of 
the Lutheran Church. Their attitude to Creeds is not the 
same. The Lutherans are established upon "Symbols" 
which are the same the world over; the Reformed have 
"Confessions" which are different in the different 
countries. And it may also be said that the differences 
between the Reformed churches are of a less essential 
nature than those existing between them and the Luther- 
ans So the Reformed churches may succeed in a union 
on the basis of indifferentism to the doctrines that have 
divided them. But from what we know of the history of 
the Lutheran Church and of the functioning of Luther- 
anism in a free country we cannot believe that the time 
will ever come when the Lutheran Church will step into 
a church union that is not established upon a careful 
agreement in matters of faith. The Lutheran Church of 
the future, we believe, cannot and will not refuse to par- 
ticipate in conferences for union, provided there is the 
assurance that the matters of faith and doctrine shall 
have fundamental consideration. But in such doctrinal 
conferences it must not be expected that the differences 
can be settled by mutual concessions. Recently we saw 
Dr. Burrell quoted to have said: "On truth you cannot 
split the difference." 

III. The Persistency of the Difference between 
Lutheranism and Calvinism. 

We are speaking of a union in which the Lutheran 
Church is expected to participate. As soon as the Lu- 
theran Church is to be included there are difficulties in 
the way of a union, which are absent when the Reformed 
churches alone are considered. There was no malice in 
the words of Luther when he said to Zwingli : "Ye have 



215 



another spirit than we" ; he simply stated an actual situ- 
ation. The Lutheran and the Reformed Church differed 
from the beginning on the relation of the divine to the 
human in the Word, in Baptism and Lord's Supper, in 
the person of Christ, in the conception of the Church and 
in much pertaining to the way of salvation. Let us look 
at the tenacity of this difference from two standpoints : 
first, by a brief review of the union movements ; and, sec- 
ond, by calling to our attention the sensitiveness of 
Lutheranism when exposed to modifying influences cal- 
culated to lead to a union with the Reformed church 
family. 

1. Union movements that have failed. We shall con- 
tent ourselves with a very brief review and refer to the 
chapters which contain the more extended discussion. 

(a) Martin Bucer, the great union theologian of the 
Reformation age, succeeded in drawing Luther into a 
union movement. The "Wittenberg Concord," in which 
the two sides had agreed, was mildly Lutheran and was 
for that reason not accepted by the Swiss. Calvin re- 
moulded the followers of Zwingli. Luther published his 
Last Confession on the Lord's Supper, and the Witten- 
berg Concord ceased to function. 16 

(b) Melanchthon who felt himself drawn to Calvin 
was desirous of a union between the followers of Luther 
and those of Zwingli. To this purpose he changed two 
significant expressions in Art. X of the Augsburg Confes- 
sion — in the edition of 1540 (Variata), — which was to 
make it easier for the Zwinglians to identify themselves 
with the Lutherans. But after the death of Luther the 
Variata was discredited. And the Lutheran Church, in 
adopting the Book of Concord, established herself upon 
the first edition of the Augsburg Confession which, to- 
gether with the Formula of Concord, was to preserve an 
uncompromising position upon the teaching of Luther as 
opposed to the modifications proposed by Melanchthon. 

(c) After the final split of Protestantism into a Luth- 

16 See our chapter I, especially the closing observations. 



216 

eran and a Reformed Church effort after effort was 
made to heal this schism. In chapters III and IV we 
have studied the following union movements: (1) the 
Consensus of Sendomir (1580); (2) the Montbeliard 
Colloquy (1586) ; (3) the Palatinate Irenieum (1606); 
(4) the advance of Paraeus (1614) ; (5) the Colloquy at 
Leipzig (1632) ; (6) the convention at Thorn (1645) ; 
(7) the Colloquy at Cassel (1661) ; (8) the Colloquy at 
Berlin (1662) ; (9) the life work of John Dury ; (10) the 
principles of George Calixtus. All these movements 
failed. The best contribution to a real understanding 
was made by the Leipzig Colloquy because here the doc- 
trinal differences were discussed with thoroughness and 
frankness. For a characterization of these movements 
as a whole we must refer to the introduction of chapter 
III. 

(d) The union movements of the nineteenth century in 
Germany brought only a partial success (cf. chapter V). 
The aim of the Prussian king was "a renewed Evangeli- 
cal Christian Church" ; but the outcome was a mere con- 
federation of two churches which both continued to main- 
tain their identity. But even this had to be forced by the 
state authorities. Such a union was possible in Germany 
because in most of the dominions one of the churches 
was overwhelmingly in the majority. So to that church 
could be given almost exclusive recognition. Such an 
arrangement would not in any way be transferable to 
American conditions. Here a mere confederation, in an 
organic union, is bound to issue into an absorptive 
church union in which the Lutheran Church would be 
sure to lose her identity and with that her heritage and 
her mission. If the Prussian Church Union had suc- 
ceeded in finding the consensus of the two churches then 
there would have been the positive contribution to a basis 
for union, upon which the Protestant churches of 
America, the Lutherans incuded, might find themselves 
together. But the consensus theory of the old "union 
theologians" (Mueller, Nitzsch, Dorner, Rothe, Ullmann) 



217 

was a phantom which they kept chasing until in 1846 it 
vanished definitely out of sight (cf. p. 130). 

(e) The German Evangelical Synod of North America 
which we have studied in chapter VI, represents an at- 
tempt to unite Lutherans and German Reformed in one 
body. The Lutherans in this body are by far in the 
majority. Under our American conditions the adherents 
of both Confessions are expected to live in one congrega- 
tion, instead of separately under a common general gov- 
ernment. So the German Evangelical Synod had to find 
a confessional platform that would be agreeable to both 
sides. Profiting from the experiences of Germany, the 
search for a consensus of doctrine between Lutherans 
and Reformed was abandoned. In its place a confessional 
basis was arrived at, which may be said to present a 
kind of a selection ("Chrestomathie") of what seemed 
best adapted to meet the needs of the constituent parts of 
the Synod. From all that we know of Lutheranism when 
it functions in freedom from the state, the Lutherans of 
America will never be ready to join in such a plan of 
union. Therefore, when the consideration is a union of 
American Protestantism, in which the Lutheran Church 
is to participate, we have to record also the attempt of 
the German Evangelical Synod among the failures. We 
must ask to read again what we wrote in the closing sec- 
tion (5) of chapter VI. 

2. Can Lutheranism be expected to change ? As has 
been said already, there are obstacles in the way of union 
when the Lutheran Church is considered as a participant, 
which are absent when a union of the rest of the churches 
of Protestantism is under consideration. The latter belong 
to one family while the Lutheran Church is in a differ- 
ent class. It is this observation that suggests our ques- 
tion which we shall now express in this form: Can we 
look for a change in the Lutheran Church of America, 
especially with regard to her appreciation of the doc- 
trinal element, that will lead to a union such as is de- 
manded by most of the advocates of organic union in our 
day ? In attempting to answer this question we can 



218 



speak with profit only by again consulting history. Our 
references must be first to Germany and then to America, 
(a) We are told that in the land of Luther the differ- 
ences between the Lutheran and the Reformed churches 
have dropped into the background and are disappearing 
more and more in this age of reconstruction. But there 
are a number of things, that must be taken into account, 
which will guard us against drawing hasty conclusions. 
(1) Liberalism with its large following in Germany (in 
and outside of the Union) naturally has no appreciation 
of confessional differences such as existed oetween the 
Reformers of the sixteenth century. One like Albr. 
Ritschl, late professor at Goettingen, (the university of a 
Lutheran province), who, in the succession of Schleier- 
macher, made man's subjective experience the criterion 
of what is to be accepted as Scripture truth naturally 
could see no objection to a union between Lutherans and 
Reformed. And there are no difficulties in the way of 
union for the men of the school of comparative religion 
which at present holds the field of liberalistic theology in 
Germany. As mere products of evolution certainly one 
church is as good as the other. The Scriptures have no 
proving value. (2) Then the training of ministers in the 
university, instead of in real church schools, is another 
factor to explain much of the confessional indifferentism 
in Germany. All confessional and theological Rich- 
tungen have equal right, and in most branches of theolo- 
gy the confessional character of teaching is entirely 
absent. There is no applicability of German conditions 
to the denominational situation in America. (3) And 
yet, confessional Lutheranism is far from being dead in 
Germany. Even under the adverse state church condi- 
tions it has shown a wonderful vitality. After its break- 
down in the age of rationalism, the second third of the 
last century brought a revival of Lutheran theology 
which received its impulses from the struggle against 
both rationalism and the Union. We refer to names 
such as Sartorius, Rudelbach, Guericke, Harless, 
Thomasius, Philippi, Th. Harnack, Caspari, Kurtz, 



219 

Kliefoth, Vilmar, von Zezschwitz, Oehler, Hofmann, De- 
litzsch, Kahnis, Keil, Luthardt, Zoeckler. And in the 
Modern Positive School of to-day, which has followed the 
Erlangen School, there is a very large representation of 
Lutheranism. Including the names of some that have 
passed away in recent years and aiming neither at com- 
pleteness nor at systematic grouping, we mention writ- 
ers such as the following: 17 Ihmels, Zahn, Kaftan, Wal- 
ther, Hilbert, Noesgen, Roemer, von Bezzel, Kloster- 
mann, Wohlenberg, Dunkmann, Bachmann, Althaus, 
Boehmer, Preuss, Leipolt, Schaeder, Uhlhorn, Zaenker, 
Laible, Bestmann, Kropatscheck, Stange, Kunze, 
Schultze; and churchmen such as Bard, Haack, Veit, 
Bracker, Paul, Oepke, Haccius, Glage, Matthes, Wetzel 
and so many more that it is simply impossible to men- 
tion them. These names certainly represent an influ- 
ence ! But we want to emphasize that back of such out- 
standing leaders there are in the congregations of Ger- 
many very many ministers of the Gospel who are all 
established upon the principles of the Augsburg Confes- 
sion and after the experiences of the last century are dis- 
trustful of a confessional union. (4) We admit that in 
the church reconstruction of Germany, at this present 
time, there is much inconsistency ("Gleichberechtigung 
der Richtungen"). But this has chief reference to liber- 
alism. The church in Germany faces the double problem 
of the extreme poverty of the country and the general 
hostility of Socialism to the Church. Under these cir- 
cumstances the leaders of the Church seem to feel that 
separate organization along the lines of distinguishing 
principles, at the present time, would make all church 
organization impossible. 

Our conclusion then, is that, considering the whole 
situation, the lessons from Germany do not point to the 
coming of a fundamental modification of historic Luther- 

17 In giving these names we have not overlooked that many- 
men of this school, as a result of the German university condi- 
tions, go too far in their emphasis upon the human factor of the 
Holy Scriptures. Yet the Bible is to them normative for Chris- 
tian doctrine, and they are opposed to the union principle. 



220 

anism by erasing the confessional difference between 
Lutherans and Reformed in the practical church life. 
The fact is that the union features of Germany have no 
applicability to conditions in America. In Germany even 
the Union in so very many of its evangelical representa- 
tives is so overwhelmingly Lutheran that the union fea- 
tures there do not mean what they would mean here. 
Co-operation and confederation in Germany can be prac- 
ticed without the effects they would have in America. 

(b) Can we look for a change of the Lutheran Church 
in America conf essionally ? The rapidly proceeding de- 
velopment into the English and the process of American- 
ization are bound to influence the Church. Will these 
things induce the Lutheran Church of this country to 
lessen her emphasis upon doctrinal truth and to approach 
the churches of the Reformed group? Young as we are 
in experiences as a church on this continent we have al- 
ready had our own history on this subject. During a 
number of decades in the history of the old General 
Synod the attempt was made to establish for the English 
Lutheran Church of America a "Lutheranism modified 
by the Puritan element," an "American Lutheranism," 
as it was called. 18 The appeal was to Melanchthon and to 
the principles of the Variata edition of the Augsburg 
Confession and to the Pietistic School in Germany. The 
movement was characterized by participation in the re- 
vivals of the denominations and much practice of pulpit 
and altar fellowship with the other churches. It even 
led to the drafting of a confessional document, the "De- 
finite Sy nodical Platform," — a new Variata of the Augs- 
burg Confession, — which was proposed as a basis for an 
"American Lutheranism." The distinguishing features 
of the Lutheran Church, such as Baptismal regeneration, 
the Real Presence in the Lord's Supper, were removed. 
The most influential men of the General Synod stood 
back of the movement : Dr. S. S. Schmucker, President of 
the Gettysburg Seminary (prominent in the organiza- 

18 Cf. Neve, Brief History of the Luth. Church in America, 
second edition, 1916, pp. 103-176. 



221 



tion of the Evangelical Alliance in London), Dr. S. 
Sprecher, President of Wittenberg College, and Dr. B. 
Kurtz, for over thirty years editor of the Lutheran Ob- 
server. Synods under names such as "Frankean Synod," 
"Melanchthon Synod" were called into existence. The 
movement was remarkable for the energy with which it 
set itself to work to accomplish its purpose. The whole 
literature on the history of the Reformation was 
searched for material in favor of Melanchthonianism and 
against the principles of historic Lutheranism as ex- 
pressed in the "unaltered" Augsburg Confession and in 
the Formula of Concord. 19 We refer to the many articles 
on this conflict in the "Lutheran Observer," the ^Lu- 
theran World," the "Lutheran Evangelist" and in the 
"Lutheran Quarterly." 20 But all these efforts could not 
keep the Lutheran Church in America (the part of it 
that had developed into the English) from asserting her 
own genius. The time came after much struggle when 
the General Synod established itself upon the "un- 
altered" Augsburg Confession and recognized "the Apol- 
ogy, the Smalcald Articles, the Small Catechism of Lu- 
ther, the Large Catechism of Luther and the Formula of 
Concord as expositions of Lutheran Doctrine of great 
historical and interpretative value." 21 After this position 
had been taken by the old General Synod the way was 
open for a union of all the English speaking bodies of the 
Lutheran Church in this country. 

Will the Lutheran Church in America change? Can 
we expect in her future development an approach to the 
positions of the Reformed church family? Certainly, 

19 Cf. Neve, Introduction to Lutheran Symbolics, p. 98 f. : "Why- 
does the Lutheran Church of to-day insist upon a subscription to 
the unaltered Augsburg Confession?" A more extensive discus- 
sion of this subject is given in the same author's publication: "Are 
we justified in distinguishing between an altered and an unaltered 
Augsburg Confession?" (Lutheran Literary Board, Burlington, 
Iowa). 

20 The "Confessional History of the Lutheran Church" by 
Prof. Dr. J .W. Richard, championed the Melanchthonian and "The 
Confessional Principle" by Drs. Schmauk and Benze the Lutheran 
side of the question. 

21 See Neve, History, as cited, pp. 176-84. 



222 

the history of Lutheranism in America gives no such en- 
couragement. The development which we have de- 
scribed was the history of the English Lutherans in this 
country. And they arrived at their present position 
after a long period of visiting with the Puritans and the 
Methodists. Dr. S. Sprecher, one of the chief promoters 
of the "American Lutheranism," wrote in old age 
^1890) : "No church can give up its creed. I thought at 
one time that a Lutheranism modified by the Puritan ele- 
ment would be desirable, but I have given up its desir- 
ableness, and I am convinced of its hopelessness." 22 
To-day the English Lutherans in America in their recog- 
nized church literature, are thoroughly established upon 
the historic positions of the Lutheran Church. Special 
evidence of this can be seen in their order of service, in 
their hymnbook, in their forms for ministerial acts, in 
their Catechism. At present they are even engaged in 
the creation of an independent system for Sunday 
School teaching, arranged after the church year as ob- 
served in the Lutheran Church. 

When the conflict over the "American Lutheranism" 
was at its height Dr. E. J. Wolf, professor in the Gettys- 
burg Seminary, published in the "Lutheran Evangelist" 
(1910), then edited by Dr. S. A. Ort, a series of articles 
on "Melanchthonian Lutheranism," which were so per- 
tinent to our discussion that we cannot resist the tempt- 
ation to quote at least a few paragraphs : 

"The whole history of Melanchthonian Lutheranism 
shows it to be lacking in the element of permanency. It 
has no staying quality With all the advantages of cir- 
cumstances and leadership, with the popularity which is 
generally claimed for liberal views over against rigid 
orthodoxy, it has proved incapable of holding its own, 
incapable of self -propagation, which is the first essential 
of all true life. It comes forth with much promise, it 
contains some very specious features, it seems to com- 
mend itself especially to Americans, but it is ephemeral. 

22 Quoted by Dr. E. J. Wolf in the "Lutheran Evangelist," April 
io, 1891. 



223 

The spirit, the tendency, the school has no future, it has 
never succeeded in embodying itself in a permanent 
form. It has never become a distinct branch of the 
Church. It either rebounds to pure, historic Lutheran- 
ism, or it bounds off to Presbyterianism, Methodism or 
some other ecclesiastical species. It soon develops to a 
point where it is found necessary to be one thing or the 
other, where one must be either for or against the intact 
Lutheran system, where one must either come out as a 
Lutheran or decide to be something else. 23 A middle 
ground between historic Lutheranism and the position of 
the other churches, a firm rock between two opposing 
Protestant systems, in which one can shout the "Hier 
stehe ich," has never been reached. 

"Such are the facts. Their explanation is as easy as 
the collection of the facts. The Lutheran faith is a body 
of truth so Scriptural, so logical, so rounded, so organic 
and symmetrical in its development, that the rejection of 
any part of it mars and mutilates the whole, and renders 
it utterly unsatisfactory. Possibly not every stone in a 
gothic cathedral is essential to it, but if you remove a 
block here, a buttress there, and a pillar yonder, if you 
substitute in places brick, stucco or wood for the original 
marble, the glory of the building is gone, its strength is 
undermined, its stability endangered. 

"Lutheranism is a system. So is Calvinism 

Each has a vitality that has withstood the storm of the 
ages. The two have much in common, and at many 
points they coincide, but when you attempt to alter either 
system or both so as to combine the two, you destroy 
both, without being able to form a new structure from 
the ruins. The result is disorganization. Building theo- 



23 While this may have been the experience of history in gen- 
eral yet we think there have been seeming exceptions : The Prus- 
sian Church Union, the Moravian Church, the German Evangeli- 
cal Synod in America. It may be replied, however, that in Prus- 
sia the Union failed to become a real absorptive Union; that the 
Moravians and the men of the German Evangelical Synod were 
the most insisting upon the organic union proposed in the move- 
ment discussed in sec. I of this chapter, in which they would soon 
have lost their identity. And compare our observation in chapter 
VI, sec. Ill, 5, close. 



224 

logical systems is not a matter of arbitrary mechanical 
exploit. Truth, like every other life-force, is organic and 
organizing, and when once the normal basis is laid lown, 
the structure grows by virtue of inherent laws. That 
Melanchthonianism is irreconcileable with Lutheranism 
was decisively shown in the preparation of the Form of 
Concord. Chemnitz and Selnecker were the ablest re- 
presentatives that school ever had, but before the docu- 
ment was completed, which settled the distracting con- 
troversies of the Church, every trace of the Melanch- 
thonian tendency disappeared. It is as impractible in 
theology as it is in nature to cross the species. The hybrid 
does not propogate itself. The mongrel has no 
successors." 24 

The tenacity of the confessional difference between the 
churches of Luther and Calvin certainly gives food for 
thought. The "other spirit" of which Luther spoke at 
Marburg is not something imaginary, but is a reality. 
At the foundation of it there is a different conception of 
Scripture truth. From this as the centre, the difference 
has worked itself out into the cultus, the piety and the 
polity of the two churches. 25 Think of the efforts of 
almost four centuries that have been spent in overcoming 
this difference ! It is the barrier of Union to-day as it 
was between Luther and Zwingli, between Calvin and 
the Lutherans of his day. 

It is no wonder that many have given up hope for a doc- 
trinal Union. Large is the number of those that call for 
a Union in spite of the existing difference. They want 
a confederation of churches. They say: Let each church 
keep its doctrinal and practical peculiarities, but let 
them federate like the states of our ILFnion in one com- 
mon government. This, then, would be an organic form 

24 Lutheran Evangelist, April 10, 1891. 

25 All Protestant churches outside of the Lutheran, irrespec- 
tive of their attitude to predestination, belong to the Calvinistic 
camp in so far as they all reject the Lutheran doctrine of the 
means of grace. It is in this field fundamentally where they can- 
not agree with Lutheranism. 



225 

of church federation. It takes us back to the Plan of 
Organic Union of Christian Churches, which was started 
by the Presbyterians and to which we referred. 
The suggestion of organic union in spite of doctrinal 
differences has, as a rule, the strong support of liber- 
alism. The liberalists in the Presbyterian Church were 
the special promotors of this movement for organic 
union of the churches. But soon there was decided pro- 
test in that body. Most of the presbyteries voted 
against the "Plan", and so it failed in the Presbyterian 
Church. The Baptists also voted it down. The Methodists 
have their interest in the "family union." The move- 
ment is bound to end in failure. 

At a recent convention of this movement for organic 
union in Philadelphia (Febr. 1920), Dr. Geo. W. 
Richards, Professor in the Reformed Seminary in Lan- 
caster, Pa., an ardent advocate of the "Plan," made a 
very interesting statement. He said : 

"The genius of a church is manifested through its doc- 
trine, cultus, polity and piety. Points of agreement and 
difference between the churches would relate to these 
four aspects of organization and life. The plan of union 
leaves intact the doctrine, the cultus and the piety of the 
church, but it requires the modification of the polity, and 
in due time such modification in polity will affect also the 
piety, the cultus and doctrine. Yet such effect will be 
almost imperceptible, and will be wrought in course of a 
long time. 

"In adopting this plan a church will begin to cease to 
be what it was and will begin to become what it was not. 
This is the surest proof that the plan calls for more than 
federal and nothing less than eventual organic union." 28 

How would such a gradual, "almost imperceptible" 
development affect the Lutheran Church if she should 
make herself a part of the organization? She would be 
unable to resist the stream of mediating and equalizing 
influences, she would very soon cease to be what she was 

36 See The Christian Union Quarterly, April 1920, p. 10. 



226 



and thus lose her heritage and her trust. But it is need- 
less to ask the question. As we know the mind of the 
Lutheran Church of America, in the German, the Scan- 
dinavian, the English quarters, we feel convinced that 
the time will never come when the Lutheran Church will 
go into organic union with the Reformed group of 
churches or with any church and leave the matter of 
doctrine and practice to a development of the future. 

It is outside of our plan to discuss forms of church 
federation, that do not call for organic union. For this 
reason we have resisted the temptation of discussing the 
"Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America," 
which comprises most of the Protestant churches in 
America, but in which the Lutherans are not represented. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2006 



PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



igies 

VATION I 



